Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell 97)

Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax
<DOCINFO AUTHOR ""TITLE "Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax: From A(frikaans) to Z(urich German)"SUBJECT "Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, Volume 97"KEYWORDS ""SIZE HEIGHT "240"WIDTH "160"VOFFSET "4">
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies
into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical
problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and
systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a
universalistic perspective.
Series Editors
Werner Abraham
University of Vienna
Elly van Gelderen
Arizona State University
Advisory Editorial Board
Cedric Boeckx
Harvard University
Guglielmo Cinque
University of Venice
Gnther Grewendorf
J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt
Liliane Haegeman
University of Lille, France
Hubert Haider
University of Salzburg
Christer Platzack
University of Lund
Ian Roberts
Cambridge University
Ken Sar
Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ
Lisa deMena Travis
McGill University
Sten Vikner
University of Aarhus
C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
University of Groningen
Volume 97
Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax: From Afrikaans
to Zurich German
Edited by Jutta M. Hartmann and Lszl Molnr
Comparative Studies
in Germanic Syntax
From Afrikaans to Zurich German
Edited by
Jutta M. Hartmann
Lszl Molnr
Tilburg University
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements
8
TM
of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (20th ; Tilburg, Netherlands)
Comparative studies in Germanic syntax : from Afrikaans to Zurich German /
edited by Jutta M. Hartmann, Lszl Molnr.
p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 01660829 ; v. 97)
Selected papers presented at the 20th Comparative Germanic Syntax
Workshop held in June, 2005, in Tilburg.
1. Germanic languages--Syntax--Congresses. I. Hartmann, Jutta. II.
Molnr, Lszl, 1971-
PD361 .W67 2005
435--dc22 2006050841
isbn 90 272 3361 6 (Hb; alk. paper)
2006 John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microlm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. P.O. Box 36224 1020 me Amsterdam The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America P.O. Box 27519 Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 usa
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 10:39 F: LA97CO.tex / p.1 (47-96)
Table of contents
From Afrikaans to Zurich German: Comparative studies
in Germanic syntax 1
Jutta M. Hartmann & Lszl Molnr
I. Studies on predication
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic 13
Halldr rmann Sigursson
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication 51
Olaf Koeneman
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans: Complex predicates and head movement 89
Mark de Vos
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates 115
Marit Julien
II. Studies on the (pro)nominal system
Pronominal noun phrases, number specications, and null nouns 143
Dorian Roehrs
Toward a syntactic theory of number neutralisation:
The Dutch pronouns je you and ze them 181
Gertjan Postma
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis 201
Martin Salzmann
III. Historical studies
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in the history of English
and Germanic 237
Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 10:39 F: LA97CO.tex / p.2 (96-105)
v: Table of contents
The loss of residual head-nal orders and remnant fronting in Late
Middle English: Causes and consequences 263
Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes: Evidence from
Old English and Old High German 299
Carola Trips
Index 329
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 8:33 F: LA97IN.tex / p.1 (46-118)
Comparative studies in Germanic syntax
Jutta M. Hartmann & Lszl Molnr
Tilburg University
The present volume contains a selection of papers presented at the 20th Com-
parative Germanic Syntax Workshop in Tilburg, June 2005. While following a
tradition of earlier CGSW-proceedings the contributions cover a wide range of
Germanic languages as well as a wide range of current topics in modern syntactic
theory, the selection also shows a strong comparative commitment. Such commit-
ment might seem evident. Indeed, the relevance of the comparative methodology
for modern syntax, and more specically for a theory of UG, can hardly be dis-
puted. To some extent, syntactic theorizing is meaningless without observing,
describing, comparing (and, in the ideal case, explaining) varieties or variations
of a specic language phenomenon occurring cross-linguistically or in different
historical stages of a given language. The aim is to nd and to control the cross-
linguistically relevant contrasts that do not go back to external factors, but can be
explained as reexes of the same difference in the grammar of the given languages,
contributing to our better understanding of the architecture of UG.
Yet, the editors of the present volume feel (and, as we believe, this sentiment
is shared by many) that the comparative aspect of CGSW has somewhat weakened
in recent years and needs to be addressed in a proper way. Only if comparative
studies offer more than just non-systematic side-glances to other languages can
important generalizations be captured and real explanatory power achieved (cf.
especially Haider 1993 or Abraham1995 in this regard). For that reason we wanted
to take the notion comparative and Germanic in the title of the Workshop
seriously, and asked for contributions that address at least two Germanic languages
(or different diachronic stages of the same Germanic language) in depth, or discuss
a specic grammatical phenomenon of a given language in the overall Germanic
perspective.
Heeding this truly comparative perspective, the essays in this volume celebrate
variety both with respect to the languages investigated and the topics addressed.
i Jutta M. Hartmann & Lszl Molnr
The editors particularly welcome that besides the usual suspects (i.e. English
and German) and recurring guests (i.e. the Scandinavia) of the CGSW-series,
we could include here studies on lesser-investigated languages such as modern
Afrikaans and Zurich German. The volume has also beneted from a strong his-
torical component, including studies on linguistic aspects of various diachronic
stages of English and German. Here, the emphasis often lies on intralinguistic,
rather than cross-linguistic variety, the methodology of comparison facing partic-
ular challenges in terms of adequate collection and evaluation of historical data
(see particularly McFadden & Alexiadous contribution in this respect).
While covering a wide range of current issues in linguistics, the present col-
lection of essays can be subsumed under three major thematic headings. The rst
part of the volume contains comparative studies on predication in Germanic, ad-
dressing issues such as case dependency in the domain of predication (Sigursson),
constraints of movement preserving or distorting thematic relations (Koeneman)
or a quirky case of complex predicate formation in Afrikaans (de Vos). The
second part of the volume contains papers on the (pro)nominal domain in Ger-
manic, including studies on the licensing conditions of pronominal noun phrases
(Roehrs), number neutralization in the Dutch pronominal system (Postma) and
resumptive pronouns in Zurich German (Salzmann). The last part of the vol-
ume looks at Germanic syntax from a diachronic perspective, taking up on issues
such as auxiliary selection in the history of English and, more generally, in Ger-
manic (McFadden & Alexiadou), remnant fronting in Middle English (Biberauer
& Roberts) and syntactic sources of word-formation processes in Old English and
Old High German (Trips). Thus, the volume presents a wide range of studies that
enrich both theoretical understanding and empirical foundation of comparative
research on the Germanic languages.
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic by Halldr rmann Sigursson de-
scribes the distribution of accusative case and discusses the nature of the nomi-
native/accusative distinction in the standard Germanic languages. In addition, it
illustrates and discusses the well-known fact that inherent accusatives and certain
other types of accusatives do not behave in accordance with Bruzios Generaliza-
tion. In spite of these Non-Burzionian accusatives, there is a general dependency
relation between the so-called structural cases, Nom and Acc, here referred to
as the relational cases, such that relational Acc is licensed only in the presence of
Nom (as has been argued by many). This relation is here referred to as the Sibling
Correlation, SC. Contrary to common belief, however, SC is not a structural cor-
relation, but a simple morphological one, such that Nom is the rst, independent
case, CASE1 (an only child or an older sibling, as it were), whereas Acc is the
second, dependent case, CASE 2, serving the sole purpose of being distinct from
Nom the Nom-Acc distinction, in turn, being a morphological interpretation
or translation of syntactic structure. It has been an unresolved (and largely a ne-
glected) problem that the Germanic languages split with respect to case-marking
of predicative DPs: nominative versus accusative (It is I/me, etc.). However, the
morphological approach to the relational cases argued for in this paper offers a
solution to this riddle: The predicative Acc languages have extended the domain
of the Sibling Correlation, such that it applies not only to arguments but also to
adjacent DPs in general. That is, the English type of predicative Acc is not default,
nor is it caused by grammatical viruses, but a well-behaved subtype of relational
Acc. The central conclusion of the paper is that one needs to abandon the struc-
tural approach to the relational cases in favor of a more traditional morphological
understanding. However, this is not a conservative but a radical move. It requires
that we understand morphology (and PF in general) not as a direct reection of
syntax but as a translation of syntax into an understandable but foreign code or
language, the language of morphology. Nom and Acc are not syntactic features
but morphological translations of syntactic correlations. It is thus no wonder that
they are uninterpretable to the semantic interface.
Olaf Koenemans Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predi-
cation builds on all the previous approaches to Shape Conservation and tries to
solve some problems that arise with them (in particular, related to A-movement
in passive constructions). It is argued that Holmbergs Generalization is a syntac-
tic and not a phonological phenomenon. This view allows the author to generalize
over a larger set of facts in the following way: Within the thematic domain, it is im-
possible to invert the relationships of thematic categories, i.e. categories assigning
or receiving a -role. The reason is that the grammar wants the interface interpre-
tations at LF and PF to be uniform. It is shown that notorious counterexamples
to thematic isomorphism, such as passivization and short verb movement, can be
dealt with in a unied way by making reference to predication theory.
Mark de Vos Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans: complex predicates and head
movement discusses a special case of complex predicate formation in modern
Afrikaans. The central aim of the paper is to give a novel account for Quirky Verb
Second, a peculiar construction in Afrikaans which optionally pied-pipes a coordi-
nated verbal cluster to verb-second position. Afrikaans is a verb-second language
that also allows the formation of a coordinated verb cluster: [POSTURE VERB]
[AND] [LEXICAL VERB]. The construction is putatively pseudo-coordinative in
character and typically occurs with aspectual verbs of posture. Either the posture
verb may undergo verb-second individually or, alternatively, the entire coordi-
nated verbal complex may undergo verb second. This construction is puzzling
on a number of grounds. If verb second includes head movement from at V to
at least T (Den Besten 1989), then the optional pied-piping of a phrase-like el-
ement is puzzling. However, if verb-second involves phrasal remnant movement
(Mller 2004), then the optional ability of the posture verb to be extracted from a
coordinate structure (in violation of the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross
| Jutta M. Hartmann & Lszl Molnr
1967)) is equally puzzling. This dilemma places this construction in a unique
position of being able to distinguish between these two opposing views of verb-
second. The paper proceeds by outlining the properties of the pied-piped vs. the
non-pied-piped construction. It is demonstrated that the pied-piped coordinated
constituent is indeed a verbal head. It is also shown that the base, non-pied-piped
structure is phrasal. A variety of tests are used to provide converging evidence for
these claims. Crucial evidence fromseparable particle placement is used to demon-
strate that a remnant-movement analysis would be untenable. The analysis is
couched in terms of true coordination in other words, the pseudo-coordinative
character of the construction is derived from the properties of the phrase struc-
ture itself rather than the properties of the coordinator. Coordination is argued to
scope over individual aspectual features within the verbal cluster itself. This means
that under certain special conditions, individual phonological features are not
within the scope of coordination, allowing them to undergo verb-second without
violating the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Thus, it is argued that verbal head-
movement may indeed be phonological feature movement (Boeckx & Stjepanovic
2001; Chomsky 2000; Zwart 1997), but with the added caveat that it can also be
true syntactic movement in certain instances. The proposal has implications for
theories of head movement, excorporation and coordination.
In Nominal arguments and nominal predicates, Marit Julien argues that the
claim that predicative nominal phrases are structurally smaller than argumental
nominal phrases is not corroborated by Scandinavian. For one thing, singular
nominals without determiners, which are structurally smaller than DPs, can be
predicates or arguments. Even more strikingly, it appears that full DPs, and even
larger phrases, can also be predicates as well as arguments in Scandinavian. To
show this, Julien rst sets out to identify a number of predicate tests, and then
applies these tests to Scandinavian nominal phrases of various sizes. The conclu-
sion is that DPs can clearly be predicates, and so can phrases where a universal
quantier has a DP as its complement. Hence, the difference between nominal ar-
guments and nominal predicates cannot be linked to the presence or absence of
a D-projection. Nominal phrases containing demonstratives are however not ac-
ceptable as predicates. The reason might well be a purely semantic one, having to
do with the deictic content of the demonstrative. The conclusion will be that the
contrast between nominal arguments and nominal predicates is not structural but
semantic. If the lexical content of a nominal phrase is such that the phrase can get
a purely intentional interpretation, the phrase can be a predicate, but if its lexical
content requires an extensional reading, the phrase is necessarily referential and
cannot be used to predicate.
Dorian Roehrs Pronominal noun phrases, number specications, and null
nouns deals with the licensing conditions of pronominal nouns phrases in Ger-
manic. According to standard assumptions, the determiner and the head noun
From Afrikaans to Zurich German ,
in the DP exhibit morphological agreement. Adopting the Postalian view, Roehrs
starts with the observation that pronominal determiners require semantic, rather
than morphological, agreement. Concentrating on number, he demonstrates in
detail that these standard assumptions are not only too weak, allowing ungram-
matical cases such as *du verdammtes Pack you(SG) damn gang, but also too
strong, disallowing grammatical examples such as ihr verdammtes Pack you(PL)
damn gang. In order to provide a uniform and homogenous account of the de-
terminer system, he proposes that pronominal determiners must agree with their
head noun not only semantically but also morphologically. Morphologically dis-
agreeing nouns are argued to be in a Specier position and the head of the
extended noun phrase hosting that Specier is a null noun. Specically, Roehrs
proposes that both regular and pronominal determiners are the same with regard
to morphological agreement; however, they differ in their semantic denotations
and syntactic selectional features: while regular determiners are dened as general
totality extractors and may select AgrP and NP, pronominal ones pick out sin-
gle or multi-member sets and select not only AgrP and NP but also the phrase with
the dis-agreeing Specier. He concludes that regular determiners are less specied
pronominal determiners. More generally, arguing that semantic number is part
of the semantics, he proposes that morphological and semantic numbers are to
be dissociated from one another. Another consequence of the discussion is that
the inventory of null nouns is extended from null countable and mass nouns (cf.
Panagiotidis 2002) to collective nouns, pluralia tantum, and proper names.
Martin Salzmanns Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive pro-
lepsis addresses the issue that, standing out among Germanic languages, Zurich
German (ZG) employs resumptive pronouns in relativization. There is an in-
triguing asymmetry in the distribution of resumptives: while resumptives are
limited to oblique positions in local relativization, they appear across the board
in long-distance relativization. This suggests that there is a fundamental differ-
ence between the two constructions. The paper reanalyzes a previous approach
by van Riemsdijk where long-distance relativization in ZG is re-interpreted as lo-
cal aboutness relativization plus binding. The construction can be shown to have
paradoxical properties: On the one hand, there is reconstruction into the position
occupied by the resumptive pronoun, on the other hand, the complement clause
turns out to be an island for extraction. This paradox is resolved by assuming a
tough-movement style analysis: Operator movement in the complement clause de-
rives a predicate and licenses an extra argument in the matrix clause, the proleptic
object. This in turn is A-moved and deleted under identity with the external head.
This predication analysis makes an alternative reconstruction strategy available as
in tough-movement and accounts for the opacity of the complement. The link be-
tween the proleptic object and the operator in the complement clause is an ellipsis
operation. Together with concomitant Vehicle Change effects this nicely explains
o Jutta M. Hartmann & Lszl Molnr
the intricate Condition C pattern in both the proleptic construction and in tough-
movement. The presence of a resumptive pronoun follows from a constraint that
requires specic chains to be phonetically realized in ZG. The entire structure rep-
resents what Salzmann calls resumptive prolepsis. On a more theoretical level,
this approach suggests a straightforward way of handling exceptional and hitherto
ill-understood cases of reconstructionwithin a theory that makes crucial use of full
copies of the antecedent. It unies resumptive prolepsis with tough-movement in
crucial respects and thereby provides a fresh look at the latter.
In Gertjan Postmas Toward a syntactic theory of feature neutralization
Kaynes (2000) syntactic theory of feature neutralisation is adopted and adapted to
account for two cases of number neutralisation in Dutch, as well as a correlation
across Germanic between the presence of number neutralisation in the nomina-
tive paradigm and the type of V2 attested in those languages. The weak Dutch
object pronoun, oblique pronoun, and possessive pronoun je you is both singu-
lar and plural. In traditional terms: je exhibits number neutralization. However,
this property of je is dependent on the syntactic context: only if je is bound, it
can be both singular and plural. If not, only the singular reading is retained. To
get a plural reading the use of the complex plural form jullie you.PL is the only
option. One way to handle this theoretically is to assume two distinct forms je
with the same phonological matrix, an anaphoric pronoun je which has number
neutralisation, and a pronominal pronoun je which is singular. It is shown that
this option leads to problems with the binding theory and needs various unattrac-
tive ad hoc stipulations. Postma follows Kayne (2000), who shows that Italian s
is part of the singular paradigm. Nevertheless, it can be used as a plural: it ac-
quires plural readings by an abstract distributor, DIST, which occupies a syntactic
slot and has syntactic properties, such as the requirement that it must be bound
by a plural antecedent. Kaynes theory can be considered as a syntactisation of
morphological neutralisation. This theory is straightforwardly applicable to the
Dutch data listed above. It predicts a deep link between anaphoric behaviour and
number neutralisation. The main objective of the paper is to apply Kaynes theory
to a diachronic problem. The Middle-Dutch 3rd person pronoun hem him dis-
played number neutralisation (it could mean both him and them), and could
be used anaphorically (himselves/themselves). Modern Dutch lost this prop-
erty. Recent data (Postma 2004) show that the loss of number neutralisation in
hem goes hand in hand with the loss of its anaphoric use. To ll the gap left by
anaphoric hem, Dutch borrowed the reexive zich from German border dialects.
This newly acquired form, once again, has number neutralisation. This conrms
the link between number neutralisation and anaphoricity, as suggested by Kayne.
In the paper Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in the history of En-
glish and Germanic by Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou, the retreat
of be as perfect auxiliary is examined in a diachronic perspective. Corpus data
are presented showing that the initial advance of have was most closely connected
to a restriction against be in past counterfactuals. Other factors which have been
reported to favor the spread of have, are either dependent on the counterfactual ef-
fect, or signicantly weaker in comparison. It is argued that the effect can be traced
to the semantics of the be perfect, which denoted resultativity rather than ante-
riority proper. Related data from other older Germanic and Romance languages
are presented, and nally implications for existing theories of auxiliary selection
stemming from the ndings presented are discussed.
Theresa Biberauers and Ian Roberts The loss of residual head-nal orders
and remnant fronting in Late Middle English: causes and consequences is a fur-
ther contribution to the ongoing discussion of the possible triggers of word order
change in Middle English (ME). The primary empirical focus of the paper is the
residual head-nal orders found in ME. The usual chronology for the general
change from OV to VO in English situates it in Early ME (Canale 1978; van Ke-
menade 1987; Lightfoot 1991; Roberts 1997; Kroch & Taylor 1994; Fischer et al.
2000), but as various authors have pointed out, orders which are indicative of
some kind of persisting OV grammar are found, albeit at rather low frequency
and somewhat disguised by other factors, until the 15th century (see Fischer et al.
2000: 177 for a summary and references). Here the authors will propose an analysis
of these orders which supports the novel proposal in Biberauer & Roberts (2005;
henceforth: B&R) that the loss of residual head-nal orders is related to the in-
troduction of obligatory clause-internal expletives. The reason for this is that both
developments result from the loss of vP-movement to SpecTP and its replacement
by DP-movement to that position. The orders that are investigated include the so-
called Stylistic Fronting (Styl-F), SVAux sequences and what has been analysed as
Verb Projection Raising (VPR), i.e. AuxOV sequences. Following and developing
the proposals in B&R, new analyses of these orders are proposed. B&R also inte-
grate the observations and analysis of van der Wurff (1997, 1999) regarding the
last attested OV orders with non-pronominal DPs. Furthermore, it is shown how
the changes that B&R propose for Late ME created some of the preconditions for
the well-known development of a syntactically distinct class of modal auxiliaries
in the 16th century (Lightfoot 1979; Roberts 1985, 1993; Warner 1997; Roberts &
Roussou 2003; Biberauer & Roberts 2006a, b).
Carola Trips Syntactic Sources of word-formation processes surveys word-
formation from a diachronic perspective and the question of whether word-
formations are built by the same principles that govern syntax. It is assumed that
word-formations like compounds and derivations historically start out as syntac-
tic phrases and in the process of becoming morphological phrases lose structural
syntactic properties like maximal projections and functional categories as well as
semantic properties like e.g. referentiality. This is shown with diachronic data
from German and English focusing on the phenomena of the development of
8 Jutta M. Hartmann & Lszl Molnr
sufxes like Modern English -hood, Modern German -heit, and the rise of geni-
tive compounds. Based on these ndings it will be claimed that an analysis like
Lieber (1992) or Ackema (1999) assuming that morphological operations are gov-
erned by syntactic principles is not borne out and that word-formation operations
have to be attributed to an independent module of word-formation subject to its
own governing principles. Nevertheless, the rise of genitive compounds shows that
new syntactic structures can occur once old syntactic structures have developed
into morphological structures implying that there is interaction between syntax
and morphology. Thus, looking at word-formation from a diachronic perspective
provides new insights into the nature and place of morphology.
References
Abraham, W. (1995). Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich: Grundlegung einer typologischen
Syntax des Deutschen. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Ackema, P. (1999). Issues in Morphosyntax [Linguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today]. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2005). Changing EPP parameters in the history of English:
accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics, 9, 546.
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2006a). Cascading parameter changes: Internally driven change
in Middle and Early Modern English. Forthcoming in T. Eythrsson & J. T. Faarlund
(Eds.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: the Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2006b). Subjects, tense and verb movement in Germanic in
Romance. Forthcoming in Proceedings of GLOW V in Asia.
Boeckx, C. & Stjepanovic, S. (2001). Head-Ing Toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 345355.
Canale, M. (1978). Word Order Change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar.
PhD dissertation, McGill University.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J.
Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step (pp. 89155). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Reprinted.
Den Besten, H. (1989). Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit
Brabant, Tilburg, Amsterdam.
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & van der Wurff, W. (Eds.). (2000). The Syntax of
Early English. Cambridge: CUP.
Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax Generativ. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Kayne, R. S. (2000). Person morphemes and reexives in Italian, French and related languages.
In R. S. Kayne, Parameters and Universals [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax] (pp.
131162). Oxford: OUP.
van Kemenade, A. (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (1994). Remarks on XV/VX alternation in Early Middle English.
Unpublished ms., University of Pennsylvania.
Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to Set Parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge MA:
The MIT Press.
Mller, G. (2004). Verb-Second as vP First. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 7, 179
234.
Panagiotidis, P. (2002). Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. Pronominality and licensing in
syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Postma, G. (2004). Structurele tendensen in de opkomst van het reexief pronomen zich in het
15de-eeuwse Drenthe en de Theorie van Reexiviteit. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 9, 144168.
Roberts, I. (1985). Agreement parameters and the development of the English modal auxiliaries.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 2158.
Roberts, I. (1993). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, I. (1997). Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In A. van
Kemenade & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change (pp. 397426).
Cambridge: CUP.
Roberts, I. &Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic Change. Aminimalist approach to grammaticalization.
Cambridge: CUP.
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Warner, A. (1997). The structure of parametric change and V-movement in the history of
English. In A. van Kemenade & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change
(pp. 380393). Cambridge: CUP.
van der Wurff, W. (1997). Deriving object-verb order in late Middle English. Journal of
Linguistics, 33, 485509.
van der Wurff, W. (1999). Objects and verbs in Modern Icelandic and fteenth-century English:
A word order parallel and its causes. Lingua, 109, 237265.
Zwart, J. W. (1997). Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of
Dutch [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:23/08/2006; 15:15 F: LA97P1.tex / p.1 (47-74)
v.v1 i
Studies on predication
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.1 (47-153)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic
Halldr rmann Sigursson
Lund University, Sweden
This paper describes the distribution of accusative case and discusses the nature
of the nominative/accusative distinction in the standard Germanic languages. In
addition, it illustrates and discusses the well-known fact that inherent accusatives
and certain other types of accusatives do not behave in accordance with Bruzios
Generalization. In spite of these Non-Burzionian accusatives, there is a general
dependency relation between the so-called structural cases, Nom and Acc, here
referred to as the relational cases, such that relational Acc is licensed only in the
precense of Nom (as has been argued by many). This relation is here referred to
as the Sibling Correlation, SC. Contrary to common belief, however, SC is not a
structural correlation, but a simple morphological one, such that Nom is the
rst, independent case, case 1 (an only child or an older sibling, as it were),
whereas Acc is the second, dependent case, case 2, serving the sole purpose of
being distinct from Nom the Nom-Acc distinction, in turn, being a morphol-
ogical inerpretation or translation of syntactic structure. It has been an unre-
solved (and largely a neglected) problem that the Germanic languages split with
respect to case-marking of predicative DPs: nominative versus accusative (It is
I/me, etc.). However, the morphological approach to the relational cases argued
for in this paper offers a solution to this riddle: The predicative Acc languages
have extended the domain of the Sibling Correlation, such that it does not apply
to only arguments but to adjacent DPs in general. That is, the English type of
predicative Acc is not default, nor is it caused by grammatical viruses, but a
well-behaved subtype of relational Acc. The central conclusion of the paper is
that we need to abandon the structural approach to the relational cases in favor
of a more traditional morphological understanding. However, this is not a
conservative but a radical move. It requires that we understand morphology (and
PF in general) not as a direct reection of syntax but as a translation of syntax
into an understandable but foreign code or language, the language of morphol-
ogy. Nom and Acc are not syntactic features but morphological translations of
syntactic correlations. It is thus no wonder that they are uninterpretable to the
semantic interface.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.2 (153-203)
:| Halldr rmann Sigursson
:. Introduction
*
In this paper I discuss the distribution of accusative case and the nature of the
nominative/accusative distinction in the Germanic languages. In generative ap-
proaches (Chomsky 1981; Burzio 1986, etc.), three different kinds of accusatives
have been generally assumed: Structural (object) accusatives, default accusatives,
and other non-structural accusatives, as described with English examples in (1):
(1) a. She saw me. structural Acc
b. It is me. default Acc
c. I arrived the second day. other non-structural Acc
The class other non-structural Acc includes not only adverbial accusatives but
also inherent accusatives.
I will here adopt a different view, arguing that there are basically only two ac-
cusative types: Relational Acc, and Non-relational Acc, where the notion relational
means dependent on the presence of a nominative DP. On this view, so-called de-
fault, predicative accusatives are a well-behaved subtype of Relational Acc. Many of
the Germanic languages, however, apply nominative case-marking of predicative
DPs. This predicative Nom/Acc variation is a central topic of this work.
In Section 2, I discuss Burzios Generalization (BG) and describe accusative
case-marking in the Germanic languages, concentrating on accusatives that are
apparent or real exceptions to BG, in particular accusative subjects and the above
mentioned predicative accusatives. Section 3 argues for a morphological, non-
syntactic understanding of the relational (structural) cases, where Nom is seen
* I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments. For helpful discus-
sions, comments and corrections, many thanks also to Anders Holmberg, Andrew McIntyre,
Cecilia Falk, Christer Platzack, Heidi Quinn, Janne Bonde Johannessen, Joan Maling, Jhanna
Bardal, Kjartan Ottosson, Lois Lopez, Marit Julien, and Verner Egerland. The ideas pursued
here have, to a varying extent, been presented at several occasions: The 19th Grammar in Focus
(GIF) in Lund, February 2005, CGSW 20 in Tilburg, June 2005, and the Linguistics Department
in Konstanz in July 2005. Many thanks to the organizers of these events and to the audiences.
In particular, I wish to express my gratitude to Ellen Brandner and her co-workers in Konstanz.
For generous help with data, many thanks to: Heidi Quinn, Andrew McIntyre, Joan Maling, Di-
anne Jonas (English), Marcel den Dikken, Sjef Barbiers, Hilda Koopman, Jan-Wouter Zwart
(Dutch), Jarich Hoekstra (North and West Frisian), Theresa Biberauer (Afrikaans), Beatrice
Santorini, Sten Vikner (Yiddish), Valentina Bianchi (Italian), Ellen Brandner, Gisbet Fanselow,
Josef Bayer, Markus Benzinger, Philipp Conzett, Ren Schiering (German and German vari-
eties), Marit Julien (Norwegian), and Ulf Teleman and other friends and colleagues in Lund:
Camilla Thurn, Cecilia Falk, Christer Platzack, David Hkansson, Henrik Rosenkvist, Martin
Ringmar, and Verner Egerland (Swedish and Swedish varieties). A preliminary version of this
work was published in Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 76: 93133 (Accusative and the
Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.3 (203-256)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic :,
as simply the rst, independent case, case1, and Acc as the second case, case2,
dependent on Nom being present in the structure. Section 4 argues that this mor-
phological understanding enables us to analyze the English type of predicative
Acc as involving an extension of the general Nom/Acc distinction between argu-
ments to DPs. In the concluding Section 5, I suggest, on the basis of the presented
facts and analysis, that we need to abandon the view that morpho(phono)logy is a
straightforward reection of syntax. Rather, we must see morphology and syntax
as distinct languages or codes, mutally understandable but foreign to each other.
That is, morphology does not mirror or show syntax, it translates it into its own
language, which is radically different from the language of Narrow Syntax (in
the sense of Chomsky 2000 and subsequent works).
i. The distribution of Nom/Acc across the Germanic languages
In this section, I will describe the distribution of accusative case and how it in-
teracts with nominative case in the Germanic languages, mainly the standard
ones. Three major domains will be considered. In 2.1, I discuss the relational or
structural cases in the sense of Burzio (1986) and the scope of his famous gen-
eralization. In 2.2, I discuss argumental and adverbial accusatives that do not fall
under BG, above all certain Icelandic accusative subjects that have sometimes been
considered to be mysterious and a major challenge to BG. Finally, in Section 2.3, I
describe the Germanic predicative Nom/Acc variation.
Sections 2.1 and 2.3 lay the foundations for the discussion in later sections,
whereas Section 2.2 is more of an intermezzo, a long detour I have been forced to
make in order to be able to later proceed on the main road, so to speak. Many of
the accusatives discussed in 2.2 are problematic and interesting, but those readers
who are only interested in the predicative Nom/Acc variation might opt for taking
a bypass more or less directly from Section 2.1 to Section 2.3.
The Germanic languages divide into (relatively) case-rich and case-poor lan-
guages, the former having (at least some) case-marking of full NPs, whereas the
latter have Nom/Acc marking of only pronouns. In addition, the case-rich lan-
guages have morphological dative and genitive case (to a varying extent).
Case-rich: Icelandic, Faroese, German, Yiddish
Case-poor: Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, North Frisian, English, West
Frisian, Dutch, Afrikaans
Many of the Germanic languages show considerable dialectal variation with re-
spect to the distribution of nominative and accusative case. Thus, some Swedish
and Norwegian varieties have partly neutralized the Nom/Acc distinction (see Ek-
lund 1982; Holmberg 1986), while other Swedish and Norwegian varieties have
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.4 (256-315)
:o Halldr rmann Sigursson
retained even dative case (Reinhammer 1973), some German varieties have some
instances of accusative instead of the general German type of nominative predica-
tive DPs, and so on. Also, many varieties that are often referred to as dialects are
more properly regarded as separate languages, from a linguistic point of view, in-
cluding for instance the Swedish lvdalsmlet (see Levander 1909) and the Ger-
man Cimbrian in northernmost Italy (see Tyroller 2003). I will however largely
limit the present study to the 12 above listed standard languages, only mentioning
other varieties occasionally.
i.: Germanic relational case-marking
All the standard Germanic languages show the core properties of accusative sys-
tems, assigning nominative to (non-quirky) subjects and accusative to most ob-
jects. This is illustrated below for three of the languages:
(2) a. She(/*Her) had seen me(/*I). English nom . . . acc
b. Hun(/*Hende) havde set mig(/*jeg). Danish nom . . . acc
c. Hn(/*Hana) hafi s mig(/*g). Icelandic nom . . . acc
A basic (and a generally known) fact about the standard Germanic languages is
that they all adhere to Burzios Generalization. The nontechnical version of BG is
as follows (Burzio 1986: 178; for exceptions, see below and, e.g., Burzio 2000):
(3) All and only the verbs that can assign a -role to the subject can assign
accusative case to an object
An alternative simple formulation of this correlation is given in (4):
(4) Relational Acc is possible only if its predicate takes an additional, external
argument
As I have argued in earlier work, however, the true generalization is evidently
not about the relation between the external role and the internal case, but be-
tween the cases themselves, nominative versus accusative. I have referred to this
as The Sibling Correlation (in e.g. Sigursson 2003: 249, 258), formulating it
as follows:
(5) (acc nom) & (nom acc)
In other words, a relational (structural) accusative is possible only in the presence
of a nominative, whereas the opposite does not hold true, i.e. the nominative is
the rst or the independent case (an only child or an older sibling, as it were). A
similar or a related understanding has been argued for by others, most successfully
by Yip et al. (1987), but also by, e.g., Haider (1984, 2000), Zaenen et al. (1985), and
Maling (1993). Importantly, however, the Sibling Correlation only makes sense if
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.5 (315-382)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic :
it applies generally, in non-nite as well as in nite clauses (see Sigursson 1989,
1991). I will discuss the nature of the Sibling Correlation in Section 3.
In accordance with BG or SC, unaccusative (or ergative) verbs like arrive,
unergative verbs like run and raising verbs like seem take nominative rather than
accusative subjects in nominative-accusative languages like English. This is illus-
trated by the following examples.
(6) a. She arrived late. / *Her arrived late.
b. She ran home. / *Her ran home.
c. She seemed to be shocked. / *Her seemed to be shocked.
More tellingly, an accusative object argument of a transitive verb turns up as
nominative subject in passive and unaccusative constructions:
(7) a. They red her.
b. She was red. / *Her was red.
(8) a. They drowned her.
b. She drowned. / *Her drowned.
These facts are well-known and have been widely studied and discussed (for a re-
cent detailed study of case-marking in English, see Quinn 2005a). As one would
expect, much the same facts are found in the other Germanic languages. This is il-
lustrated belowfor only transitive/passive pairs in German, Swedish and Icelandic,
respectively:
(9) a. Sie
they
haben
have
ihn
him.acc
gewhlt.
chosen
They chose him.
b. Er
he.nom
wurde
was
gewhlt.
chosen
/
/
*Ihn wurde gewhlt.
*acc
(10) a. De
they
valde
chose
honom.
him.acc
b. Han
he.nom
valde-s.
chose-pass
/
/
*Honom valde-s.
*acc
He was chosen.
(11) a. eir
they
vldu
chose
hana.
her.acc
b. Hn
she.nom
var
was
valin.
chosen
/
/
*Hana var valin.
*acc
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.6 (382-441)
:8 Halldr rmann Sigursson
i.i Non-Burzionian accusatives
A priori, it is not clear why BG or SC should hold, that is, it is not obvious why the
subjects in the examples above cannot be accusative. It is appropriate to further
highlight this seemingly unexpected fact:
(12) a. *Her arrived late.
b. *Her ran home.
c. *Her seemed to be shocked.
d. *Her was red.
e. *Her drowned.
Why is this the case in not only the other Germanic languages but in accusative
languages (and accusative subsystems) in general? We shall return to this ques-
tion in Section 3. Irrespective of the answer, these facts illustrate a truly striking
generalization, and it is indeed proper that it has a name of its own.
As acknowledged by Burzio (1986, 2000), however, it is not the case that all
accusatives fall under his generalization. Adverbial accusatives in languages like
German and Icelandic are perhaps the most obvious case of Non-Burzionian
accusatives:
(13) a. Dann
then
regnete
rained
es
it
den
the.acc
ganzen
whole.acc
Tag
day
/
/
*der
*nom
ganze Tag.
Then, it rained all day.
b.
then
rigndi
rained
allan
all.acc
daginn
day.the.acc
/
/
*allur
*nom
dagurinn.
Then, it rained all day.
Accusative adverbial NPs most commonly have a temporal reading, as in these
examples, but local (path) readings also occur, as illustrated below for Icelandic:
(14) a. Hn
she
synti
swam
heilan
whole.acc
klmetra
kilometre.acc
/
/
*heill
*nom
klmetri.
b. Hann
he
gengur
walks
alltaf
always
smu
same.acc
lei
route.acc
/
/
*sama
*nom
lei.
As discussed by (Zaenen et al. 1985: 474475), path adverbials of this sort often
show up in the nominative in passives, thus behaving similarly as Burzionian ac-
cusatives.
1
In contrast to argumental accusatives, however, path accusatives may
also be retained in impersonal passives, that is, the Acc passive (?)a er/var gengi
essa smu lei til baka daginn eftir it is/was walked this same route.acc back the
:. In Finnish, this even applies to temporal adverbials (Maling 1993).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.7 (441-496)
day after is fairly acceptable, whereas, e.g., *a er/var teikna essa smu lei it
is/was drawn this same route.acc is impossible.
2
Another type of Non-Burzioninan accusatives is accusative complements of
prepositions. As illustrated below for English, German, Swedish and Icelandic, in
that order, accusative prepositional complements are well-formed in the absence
of an external argument:
(15) a. There is much talking about him here.
b. Hier
here
wird
is
(*es)
(*it)
viel
much
ber
about
ihn
him.acc
gesprochen.
talked
c. Hr
here
talas
is-talked
(det)
(it)
mycket
much
om
about
henne.
her.acc
d. Hr
here
er
is
(*a)
(*it)
tala
talked
miki
much
um
about
hana.
3
her.acc
These types are not problematic for BG, as it is formulated specically for argu-
ments of verbs, but they illustrate that morphological accusatives can be used for
Non-Burzonian purposes, even in basically accusative systems.
On the other hand, quirky accusatives are unexpected under BG and SC.
Consider the Icelandic examples below:
(16) a. Mig
me.acc
vantar
lacks
peninga.
money.acc
I lack/need money.
b. Mig
me.acc
langar
longs
heim.
home
I want to go home.
c. Mig
me.acc
furar
surprises
in
essu.
this
Im surprised by this.
As seen, the accusatives in these exampels are well-formed irrespective of whether
their predicate takes an additional argument. That is, BG and SC would seem
to make a wrong prediction for these predicates (but see below for a different
interpretation).
i. This applies to my own grammar, which, as far as I can tell, is the standard variety in this re-
spect. In the so-called new passive variety, on the other hand, a er/var teikna essa smu
lei it is/was drawn this same route.acc would be grammatical (see, e.g., Maling & Sigur-
jnsdttir 2002).
. The d-example illustrates the well-known fact that the Icelandic expletive can only occur
clause-initially (Thrinsson 1979; see also Sigursson 2004a for a feature based approach to this
Clause Initial Constraint, CLIC).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.8 (496-559)
io Halldr rmann Sigursson
Jnsson (1998: 35f.) lists almost 60 predicates that take an accusative sub-
ject in (standard) Icelandic. As demonstrated below, Faroese (Thrinsson et
al. 2004: 253f.) and German also have examples of this sort, albeit much less
frequently:
(17) a. Meg
me.acc
grunai
suspected
hetta.
this.acc
Faroese
I suspected this.
b. Mich
me.acc
hungert.
hungers
German
I am hungry.
The Germanconstruction is peripherical (see, e.g., Wunderlich 2003), and it seems
to be rapidly disappearing from Faroese as well (Eythrsson & Jnsson 2003). It is
also losing some ground in colloquial Icelandic, through so-called dative sickness,
whereby accusative experiencer subjects in examples like (16ac) are replaced with
datives (see Smith 1996 and the references there).
Icelandic has a second type of quirky accusative subjects, where the subject is
not an experiencer but a theme or a patient, as illustrated below(Zaenen & Maling
1984 and many since):
(18) a. Okkur
us.acc
rak
drove
a
to
landi.
land
We drifted ashore.
(drove = got-driven)
b. Btinn
boat.the.acc
fyllti
lled
in
augabragi.
ash
The boat swamped immediately.
(lled = got-lled)
c. Mig
me.acc
tk
took
t.
out
I was swept overboard.
(took = got-taken)
d. Mennina
men.the.acc
bar
carried
a
towards
in
essu.
that
The men arrived then.
(carried = got-carried)
As we shall see shortly, this second, theme/patient construction has an uncon-
trolled process or fate reading. For convenience, we may thus refer to the ac-
cusatives in (16)(17) versus (18) as Psych Accusatives and Fate Accusatives,
respectively.
4
While Psych Accusatives tend to get replaced by datives, Fate Ac-
cusatives often give way to the nominative in (mainly) colloquial Icelandic (see
|. As pointed out to me by Kjartan Ottosson, the notion fate may not be entirely satisfactory
here. The most common type of these predicates typically involves the natural forces as the
source or the hidden agent of the event (as discussed in Ottosson 1988). However, this does
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.9 (559-618)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic i:
Eythrsson 2000), in which case they behave like ordinary unaccusatives in the
language (see below).
As discussed by Haider (2001) and Kainhofer (2002), German also has Fate
Accusatives of a similar sort, as illustrated in (19) (ex. (7a) in Haider 2001: 6):
(19) Oft
often
treibt
drives
es
it
ihn
him.acc
ins
into-the
Gasthaus.
bar
He often drifts into the bar.
However, the German construction has an expletive, which perhaps or even plau-
sibly may be analyzed as carrying nominative case.
5
An expletive is excluded in the
Icelandic construction:
(20) a. Mann
one.acc
hrekur
drives
stundum
sometimes
af
off
lei.
track
Sometimes one loses ones track/gets carried away.
b. *a
it
hrekur
drives
mann
one.acc
stundum
sometimes
af
off
lei.
track
Thus, the Icelandic construction differs from the German one. However, Icelandic
has another construction that is to an extent similar to the German construc-
tion. This is the Impersonal Modal Construction, IMC, discussed in Sigursson
(1989: 163ff.), with an arbitrary external role and an optional expletive (the expli-
tive is generally only optional in Icelandic, see Thrinsson 1979). IMC is exem-
plied in (21); as suggested by the postverbal position of the accusatives, they are
regular objects and not quirky subjects (in contrast to the quirky accusatives in
(16), (18) and (20)):
(21) a. a
it
has
a
to
byggja
build
hsi
house.the.acc
hr.
here
They are going to build the house here.
b. a
it
arf
needs
a
to
astoa
assist
hana.
her.acc
One needs to assist her.
c. Hr
here
m
may
ekki
not
reykja
smoke
vindla.
cigars.acc
One may not smoke cigars here.
not extend to all examples of this sort, for instance (18d) and (20) below. I therefore take the
liberty of using the notion fate as a cover term for forces that are not in human power.
,. This might extend to the new passive in Icelandic (type It was hit me.acc). I will not dis-
cuss this here, but see, e.g., Sigursson (1989: 355f.), Sigurjnsdttir & Maling (2001), Maling &
Sigurjnsdttir (2002).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.10 (618-769)
ii Halldr rmann Sigursson
Possibly, however, both IMC and the German construction throw a light on the
origin of the Icelandic Fate Accusative, that is, it may have grown out of a similar
transitive construction, with an unexpressed fate subject, as it were.
As discussed by Zaenen & Maling (1984) and by Sigursson (1989), ordinary
unaccusatives have similar properties in Icelandic as in related languages, show-
ing the familiar Acc-to-Nom conversion when compared to homophonous or
related transitives, much like passives. Consider the following transitive-passive-
unaccusative triple:
(22) a. Hn stkkai garinn.
she enlarged garden.the.acc
Transitive: Nom-Acc
b. Garurinn var stkkaur.
garden.the.nom was enlarged
Passive: Nom
c. Garurinn stkkai.
garden.the.nom enlarged
Unaccusative: Nom
In contrast, Fate Accusative predicates, like the ones in (18), show an unexpected
and (what seems to be) a cross-linguistically very rare behavior, in taking an
unaccusative accusative, as it were:
(23) a. Hn fyllti btinn.
she lled boat.the.acc
Transitive: Nom-Acc
b. Bturinn var fylltur.
boat.the.nom was lled
Passive: Nom
c. Btinn fyllti.
boat.the.acc lled
Unaccusative: Acc!
In contrast, datives and genitives are regularly retained in both passives and unac-
cusatives:
6
(24) a. Hn seinkai ferinni.
she delayed journey.the.dat
Transitive: Nom-Dat
b. Ferinni var seinka.
journey.the.dat was delayed
Passive: Dat
c. Ferinni seinkai.
journey.the.dat delayed
Unaccusative: Dat
On a lexical approach to quirky and inherent case-marking, we would seem to be
forced to analyze the accusative in (23c) (and the ones in (18)) as lexical, that is,
as selected by an quirky case requiring feature or property of the predicate (see the
discussion in Sigursson 1989: 280ff.). As seen in (23b), however, this accusative
o. As opposed to nominalizations and the so-called middle -st construction (see Zaenen &
Maling 1984 and many since, e.g., Svenonius 2005).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.11 (769-839)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic i
is not retained in the passive, instead undergoing the Nom-to-Acc conversion reg-
ularly seen for ordinary relational, non-inherent accusatives, as in (22b). That is,
what would seem to be one and the same accusative shows paradoxical behavior.
We may refer to this state of affairs as the Fate Accusative Puzzle. As we shall
see soon, however, the puzzle is in a sense not real, as the unaccusative accusative
is arguably not the same accusative as the transitive one.
As recently discussed by McFadden (2004), McIntyre (2005) and Svenonius
(2005), there are reasons to believe that the inherent cases are in fact structurally
matched against syntactic heads or features rather than lexically licensed.
7
In this
vein, Svenonius (2005) argues for a structural solution to the Fate Accusative Puz-
zle, suggesting that the predicates in question have a cause component but only
an optional voice, in the sense of Kratzer (1996) and Pylkknen (1999) where
voice is the head that licenses agent. In addition, Svenonius (2005) suggests that
cause is implicated in the licensing of accusative case, and is absent from normal
unaccusatives. That is, predicates are varyingly complex, transitives having both
voice and cause, Fate Accusative predicates or accusative unaccusatives having
only cause, and regular unaccusatives having neither:
8
(25) a. [
VoicP
DP
nom
voic [
CausP
caus [
VP
V DP
acc
]]] Transitive Nom-Acc
b. [
CausP
caus [
VP
V DP
acc
]] Acc unaccusatives
c. [
VP
V DP
nom
] Nom unaccusatives
Dative taking unaccusatives, like seinka delay in (24c), also have the cause com-
ponent plus a special dative or dat feature, necessary for the assignment of da-
. Thus, as has been observed in the literature every now and then, there is generally no xed
linking between lexical roots and specic cases, as illustrated by numerous minimal pairs like
the following one (involving various types of predicates):
(i) a. Veri
weather.the.nom
er
is
kalt.
cold
b. Mr
me.dat
er
is
kalt.
cold
Im freezing.
(ii) a. Hsi
house.the.nom
var
was
loka.
closed
The house was (in the state of being) closed.
b. Hsinu
house.the.dat
var
was
loka.
closed
The house was (in the process of being) closed (by someone).
8. Svenonius assumes a slightly more complex analysis (where active versus passive or act and
pass play a crucial role), but the presentation in (25) is sufciently detailed for our purposes.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.12 (839-902)
i| Halldr rmann Sigursson
tive case (ibid). The transitive and the dative unaccusative in (24a, c) thus have
roughly the following structures:
(26) a. [
VoicP
DP
nom
voic[
CausP
caus[
DatP
dat[
VP
VDP
dat
]]] Transitive Nom-Dat
b. [
CausP
caus [
DatP
dat [
VP
V DP
dat
]]] Dat unaccusatives
Icelandic has many kinds of datives (Bardal 2001; Maling 2002a, 2002b; Jns-
son 2003; Sigursson 2003: 230ff.), so we must understand dat as a shorthand for
an array of syntactic features (heads) or feature combinations, each such feature
or feature combination leading to dative case-marking in Icelandic morphology.
9
With that modication, it seems to me that Svenonius has developedan interesting
approach to many of the numerous facts known from the voluminous literature
on Icelandic case. However, while a structural approach to the inherent cases is
promising, such an approach to the relational, so-called structural cases (Burzio-
nian Nom/Acc) is fundamentally mistaken, I believe, contradictory as that may
seem (see also Sigursson 2003, 2006). I will return to the issue in Section 3.
As mentioned above, the peculiar accusative unaccusative construction in
Icelandic has a special uncontrolled process semantics, a get-passive fate reading
of a sort, hence the term Fate Accusative. Consider (18) = (27):
(27) a. Okkur
us.acc
rak
drove
a
to
landi.
land
We drifted ashore.
(drove = got-driven)
b. Btinn
boat.the.acc
fyllti
lled
in
augabragi.
ash
The boat swamped immediately.
(lled = got-lled)
c. Mig
me.acc
tk
took
t.
out
I was swept overboard.
(took = got-taken)
d. Mennina
men.the.acc
bar
carried
a
towards
in
essu.
that
The men arrived then.
(carried = got-carried)
Importantly, this fate reading is not shared by the transitive or passive counterparts
to these (or other Fate Accusative) predicates (as already pointed out by Ottosson
1988: 148). Thus, Icelandic we lled the boat and the boat was lled has much
the same expected readings as English We lled the boat and The boat was lled,
that is, it means that the boat was deliberately lled in some usual, expected man-
ner, with sh or some cargo. Icelandic the boat lled, in contrast, has only one
very specic meaning, namely that the boat unexpectedly and dangerously got
. The same features are arguably present in the syntax of languages, such as English, that keep
quiet about them in their morphology (cf. Sigursson 2003, 2004d).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.13 (902-960)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic i,
lled with water, i.e. that it swamped. Similarly, Icelandic Mig tk t in (27c), lit-
erally me took out, cannot possibly mean that somebody took me out. It has only
one, very specic meaning, the fate reading that I accidentally swept aboard. In all
cases of this sort, the transitive and passive versions have much the same general,
broad semantics as in English and other related languages, whereas accusative un-
accusatives always have a narrow, semi-idiomatic fate meaning, absent from the
transitive and the passive.
This important fact has not been generally noticed or highlighted, so one com-
monly sees pairs like the following in the literature (here taken from Sigursson
1989: 216, but see also similar examples in e.g. Zaenen & Maling 1984; Jnsson
1998; Svenonius 2005):
(28) a. Btinn
boat.the.acc
rak
drove
on
land.
land
The boat drifted ashore.
b. Stormurinn
storm.the.nom
rak
drove
btinn
boat.the.acc
on
land.
land
This description is however misleading. As pointed out already by Ottoson
(1988: 147f.), transitive clauses like (28a) are semantically anomalous, since tran-
sitive verbs like reka drive usually require an animate agent. The same holds for
other apparent pairs or sets of transtives/passives and accusative unacusatives, as
illustrated below for fylla ll:
(29) a. Btinn
boat.the.acc
fyllti
lled
(af
(with
sj).
sea)
The boat swamped.
b.
?
Sjrinn
sea.the.nom
fyllti
lled
btinn.
boat.the.acc
(30) a. Vi
we.nom
fylltum
lled
btinn.
boat.the.acc
We lled the boat (with cargo, sh, etc.).
b. Bturinn
boat.the.nom
var
was
fylltur.
lled
The boat was lled (with cargo, sh, etc.).
Thus, the accusative unaccusatives require a special fate or uncontrolled process
feature to be present or active in their clausal structure. Call this feature simply
fate. There is no doubt, as we have seen, that this feature is precluded in related
transitives and passives, and the natural interpretation of that fact is that fate is a
voice feature of a sort, blocking or turning off the usual voice feature that other-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.14 (960-1004)
io Halldr rmann Sigursson
wise introduces agent in both transitives and passives.
10
As Ottosson (1988: 148)
puts it, Fate Accusatives occur in a construction that stands outside the regu-
lar voice system. That is, the nature of Fate Accusatives is quite different from
that of normal relational (not semantically linked) accusatives, and hence the Fate
Accusative Puzzle is not real.
The fate feature is largely (but not entirely) specic for the accusative un-
accusatives, that is, it is not generally active in structures with either regular un-
accusatives or dative taking unaccusatives. This is illustrated for the dative taking
ljka nish, end (discussed in, e.g., Sigursson 1989 and Svenonius 2005):
(31) a. Hn
she.nom
lauk
nished
sgunni.
story.the.dat
She nished the story.
b. Sgunni
story.the.dat
lauk.
nished
The story ended/came to an end.
The transitive means end/nish something, and the unaccusative also has the gen-
eral core meaning end, without any special reading being added. While Fate Ac-
cusative predicates yield information about the power (fate/natural forces) causing
the event, such semantically narrowing or specifying information is absent from
many or most other unaccusative predicates. It is of course logically possible that
an event expressed by predictes like ljka nish, end, seinka delay in (24) and
stkka enlarge in (22) can be due to fate or natural forces, but this reading is not
forced for these predicates, in contrast with Fate Accusative predicates.
In sum, there is no doubt that Fate Accusatives relate to semantics of a rather
special sort. However, this does not alter the fact that these peculiar accusatives are
like Psych Accusatives in that they do not comply with BG or the Sibling Correla-
tion. Restaurant Talk Accusatives, recently discussed by Wiese and Maling (2005),
on the other hand, can be anlyzed as involving deletion, as sketched below for
German and Icelandic, respectively:
11
:o. An issue of general theoretical interest is whether inactive features are syntactically absent,
or present but default or not activated. I assume the latter (following Cinque 1999: 127ff.; for a
general discussion, see also Sigursson 2004d).
::. Alternatively, one can assume silent functional categories in examples of this sort, including
the subject number and person, a modal head commonly expressed by verbs meaning want and
a silent main predicate commonly expressed by verbs meaning get. Under such an approach
(tallying with the approach to morphosyntactic silence argued for in Sigursson 2004d), the
problem of recoverability does not arise.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.15 (1004-1089)
(32) a. Ich
I.nom
mchte
would-like
Einen
a
Kaffee
coffee.acc
bekommen,
get,
bitte.
please
One coffee, please
b. g
I.nom
vil
want
f
get
Tvo
two
stra
large
bjra,
beers.acc,
takk.
please
Similarly, accusatives in PRO innitives are unproblematic if nominative is active
in such innitives (as argued in Sigursson 1989, 1991):
(33) a. Mir
me.dat
graut
dreads
[PRO
PRO
den
the
Brief
letter.acc
zu
to
schreiben].
write
German
I nd it dreadful to write the letter.
b. Mr
me.dat
leiist
bores
[a
to
PRO
PRO
lesa
read
bkina].
book.the.acc
Icelandic
I nd it boring to read the book.
Icelandic has many predicates that take a dative subject and a nominative object
(Thrinsson 1979; Zaenen et al. 1985; Sigursson 1989, 1996, and many others),
and German has some similar Dat-Nompredicates (usually taken to have different
properties as regards subjecthood versus objecthood, but see Eythrsson & Bar-
dal 2005 and Bardal 2006 for a different view). In contrast, some related and/or
similar predicates in Faroese are Dat-Acc predicates, as illustrated in the examples
below (from Thrinsson et al. 2004: 255ff.):
(34) a. Mr
me.dat
lkar
likes
hana
her.acc
vl.
well
I like her.
b. Henni
her.dat
vantar
lacks
ga
good
orabk.
dictionary.acc
She needs a good dictionary.
The Icelandic equivalent of (34b) can in fact also be heard in substandard Ice-
landic. Conversely, Faroese also has some Dat-Nom predicates.
In Sigursson (2003), I argued that accusatives in examples of this sort are
relational, the structures in question involving an invisible nominative, triggering
or licensing the accusative (in accordance with the Sibling Correlation; for related
ideas see Haider 2001, but for a different approach, see, e.g., Woolford 2003). This
would seem to get support from the historical development in English in general
(Allen 1996) and partly in Faroese, where numerous predicates have altered their
case frames in the following manner:
(35) Dat
i
-Nom
j
> Dat
i
-Acc
j
(or Oblique
i
-Oblique
j
) > Nom
i
Acc
j
Alternatively, one might want to suggest that the accusative in Faroese Dat-Acc
constructions is licensed by the external dative or that it is some sort of a default
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.16 (1089-1148)
i8 Halldr rmann Sigursson
case, but that would seem to raise even more difcult problems and questions
than the invisible nominative case approach, most simply the question of why the
Faroese subject dative should license or allow object accusative any more than ex-
ternal datives in e.g. standard Icelandic, German and Old English. Also, invoking
the notion of default case amounts to giving up any hope of an insightful ac-
count. If Faroese resorts to default case in its Dat-Acc constructions, the question
arises why it does not in e.g. predicative constructions (see the next subsection).
Moreover, the change Dat
i
-Acc
j
> Nom
i
-Acc
j
would involve two changes on the
default case approach (inherent-default > relational-relational), whereas it involves
only one change on the relational case approach (inherent+relational-relational >
relational-relational). In addition, the accusative in the Faroese Dat-Acc pattern
seems to be like regular relational accusatives in not being semantically linked,
unlike both Psych Accusatives and Fate Accusatives.
Regardless of how we account for the exceptional Dat-Acc pattern in Faroese,
it is clearly unexpected under any straightforward morphological understand-
ing of Burzios Generalization (BG) and the Sibling Correlation (SC), like Psych
Accusatives and Fate Accusatives. Yet another type of unexpected argumental ac-
cusatives is found in a peculiar (and lexically a very limited) raising construction
in Icelandic (discussed in Sigursson 1989, e.g., 218f.), where accusative is retained
or fossilized, in contrast to, e.g., both German and English:
(36) a. laf/*lafur
Olaf.acc/*nom
var
was
hvergi
nowhere
a
to
nna
nd
__.
b. Er/*Ihn
he/*him
war
was
nirgends
nohwere
zu
to
nden
nd
__.
c. He/*Him was nowhere to be found __.
As mentioned above, adverbial and prepositional accusatives are not really prob-
lematic for BG or SC. On the other hand, all the argumental accusatives that are
well-formed in the absense of an external nominative argument are unexpected
under BG/SC:
Psych Accusatives in Icelandic and to an extent in German and Faroese
Fate Accusatives in Icelandic (and possibly in German varieties, depending on
whether or not the expletive carries nominative case)
The fossilized accusative in Icelandic examples like (36a) (perhaps only a
subtype of the Fate Accusative)
The accusative in Faroese Dat-Acc constructions
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.17 (1148-1193)
Moreover, English allows (subject and) object accusatives in gerunds like the fol-
lowing ones (see e.g. Quinn 2005a: Section 8.6), where there is no visible well-
formed nominative:
12
(37) a. I was embarrassed [by him seeing me there].
b. [His accusing me] surprised me greatly.
c. [Him seeing me there] was unfortunate.
d. *[He seeing me there] embarrassed me.
There seems no doubt that the object accusative in examples of this sort is a regular
accusative, much as in subjectless gerunds and PRO innitives:
(38) a. Seeing me there suprised him.
b. To see me there surprised him.
On the relational view of the so-called structural cases, the object accusative
in all these cases is licensed by an active nominative case feature, even though
the nominative is morphologically invisible. The same applies to the matrix ac-
cusative in examples like (38), where the gerund seeing me there and the innitive
to see me there receive invisible nominative case, thereby licensing the matrix ac-
cusative him (see Sigursson 2003: 248). An alternative view would be that these
object accusatives are exceptional in one way or another. That does not seem to
be the case.
One way around the problem raised by Non-Burzionian accusatives in at least
Icelandic (see e.g. Burzio 2000; Sigursson 1989) is to say that these accusatives
are inherent, like datives and genitives, and to formulate BG such that it applies to
relational (stuctural) accusatives only, as I did in (4) above. This might seemto be
circular and vacuous. First, we adopt a broad generalization over accusative case,
and then, when we learn about accusatives that do not behave as the generalization
would lead us to expect, we reformulate it such that it does not apply to these
exceptional accusatives. By also excluding other types of different accusatives
(prepositional, adverbial) we end up with a notion of a relational accusative that
simply means an accusative that behaves in accordance with BG/SC.
However, in spite of the seemingly ad hoc avor of this approach, it is em-
pirically quite correct, as far as can be seen. Outside the domain of exceptional
or Non-Burzionian accusatives, Burzios Generalization really does hold true for
:i. Joan Maling and Andrew McIntyre, p.c. The fact, illustrated in the d-example, that the sub-
ject of the gerund cannot be nominative seems to suggest that the accusative of the gerund
subject in the c-example is a prepositional accusative of a sort (like the subject accusative in the
a-example), assigned by a deleted or a silent for-type preposition (for himseeing me there . . ., as
it were). I refrain from taking a stand on the issue, though (according to Huddleston & Pullum
et al. 2002: 460, at least some gerunds can have a nominative subject in formal style).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.18 (1193-1250)
o Halldr rmann Sigursson
all Germanic varieties and, quite presistently, across accusative systems in gen-
eral.
13
Thus, even in Icelandic, Non-Burzionian accusatives are generally excluded,
as illustrated below for the most central predicate types:
(39) a. Hn/*Hana
she/*her
kom
arrived
seint.
late
b. Hn/*Hana
she/*her
hljp
ran
heim.
home
c. Hn/*Hana
she/*her
virtist
seemed
vera
become
skelku.
shocked
d. Hn/*Hana
she/*her
var
was
rekin.
red
e. Hn/*Hana
she/*her
drukknai.
drowned
Thus, in spite of the fact that Icelandic and some other languages have some types
of Non-Burzioninan accusatives, Burzios Generalization or the Sibling Correla-
tion expresses a striking thruth about accusative systems and must therefore be
taken seriously as a revelation of the nature of the relational cases.
Having established that most of the Non-Burzioninan accusatives discussed
in this section can be specially accounted for and are thus not counterevidence
against the Sibling Correlation, we can take the main road again, turning to the
Germanic predicative Nom/Acc variation.
i. The Germanic predicative Nom/Acc variation
The case-rich Germanic languages all have nominative predicative DPs (in non-
ECM):
14
(40) a. Ikh
I
bin
am
a
a
guter
good
yid
Jew.nom
/
/
*a gutn yid.
*acc
Yiddish nom
b. Das
that/this
sind
are
wir
we
/
/
*uns.
*us
German nom
That/This is us.
:. Outside the Germanic languages, exceptional or Non-Burzionian accusatives are found in,
e.g., Tamil (Dat-Acc, see Lehmann 1993: 184ff.) and Modern Greek (Gen-Acc, see e.g. Anagnos-
topoulo 2003).
:|. See Maling & Sprouse (1995) on predicative case in some of the Germanic languages. I have
not been able to track down any other studies of predicative case from a comparative/generative
Germanic perspective.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.19 (1250-1414)
c. Ta
it
eru
are
vit
we
/
/
*okkum.
*us
Faroese nom
It is us.
d. a
it
erum
are
vi
we
/
/
*okkur.
*us
Icelandic nom
It is us.
The case-poor Germanic languages, on the other hand, show a remarkable varia-
tion with respect to predicative case, that has, to my knowledge, never been care-
fully studied. English, Danish, most varieties of Norwegian (Norw1) and North
Frisian have accusative marking of predicative NPs:
(41) a. It is us. English acc
b. Det er os.
it is us
Danish acc
c. Det er oss.
it is us
Norw1 acc
d. Dt as s.
it is us
N. Frisian acc
In English, predicate nominative examples like It is I do occur, above all in the
written language (e.g., Quinn 2005a: 233ff.).
15
Corresponding Danish examples,
*Det er jeg, etc., are unacceptable in all contexts (Allan et al. 1995: 143).
The other case-poor Germanic languages normally have nominative marking:
(42) a. Det r vi/*oss.
is is we/*us
Swedish nom
b. Det er vi.
16
is is we
Norw2 nom
c. Dat zijn wij/*ons.
is are we/*us
Dutch nom
d. Dat bin ik/*my.
it is I/*me
W. Frisian nom
e. Dit is ek(ke)/*my.
it is I/*me
Afrikaans: nom
The English type accusative marking in (41) has not generally been taken seriously
as a linguistic fact, at least not within generative case theory. As Quinn puts it, in
:,. Examples of this sort have variable status, that is, xed expressions like This is she (as a
formula used to answer the telephone) and It is I are better or more familiar than for instance
??
It is we (Joan Maling, p.c., Heidi Quinn p.c., see also Huddleston & Pullum, et al. 2002: 459).
However, the expressions in question seem to be kept alive mainly or exclusively by prescriptivist
inuences (Joan Maling, p.c., Andrew McIntyre, p.c.).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.20 (1414-1458)
i Halldr rmann Sigursson
her detailed study of English case-marking (2005a: 1), it has often been assumed or
suggested that pronoun case selection in English is largely unsystematic, and best
treated as the product of local rules, grammatical viruses, and hypercorrection
(see also the historical opinion survey in Visser 1963: 241ff.). The fact that English
shares many of its case properties with some other Germanic varieties immediately
suggests that this view must be mistaken (as also pointed out by Visser 1963: 244).
Nonetheless, the Germanic predicative Nom/Acc variation has remained largely
neglected within generative case theory, for the embarrassing reason, I believe, that
there is really nothing interesting to be said about it under a structural approach to
the relational cases under such an approach the predicative case variation makes
no sense, it is just unexpected and mysterious. In contrast, I will here argue that
the English type of case facts are indeed serious and intelligent data that can be
systematically accounted for to a much greater extent than often assumed.
For convenience, I will refer to the Germanic languages that (normally or
centrally) apply nominative versus accusative marking of predicative DPs as pred-
icate nominative languages versus predicate accusative languages.
Most of the predicate nominative case-poor languages are actually partly pred-
icate accusative. Thus, in the third person, both Dutch and West Frisian allow
accusative marking, provided that the pronoun is a weak one (in which case fo-
cal stress moves from the pronoun onto the verb), as illustrated in the c-examples
below:
17
(43) a. Dat
it
is
is
hij.
he
Dutch
b. *Dat
it
is
is
hem.
him
c. Dat IS m.
:. My informants cannot use the weak het it here (but for a discussion of a Dutch gram-
mar where this is possible, see van Gelderen 1997: 152ff.). With a weak it-pronoun, many or
most speakers of both Dutch and German accept only the West-Germanic Inverted Predica-
tive Construction (IPC) we are it, etc. (German: Wir sind es; Dutch: Wij zijn het). This type
was also prevailing in Old English, with the non-verb-second order we it are (see the exam-
ple in (55a) below), but it is not generally acceptable in the Scandinavian languages and Modern
English. I dont have anything interesting to say about the correlation between IPCand the regu-
lar, non-inverted predicative construction. Let me just emphasize that verb agreement is clearly
not decided by subjecthood in the Germanic languages. Thus, predicative NPs control verb
agreement in Icelandic examples like the following (Sigursson 1996, 2004b, 2004c):
(i) a
it
ha
have.2pl
then
sennilega
probably
bara
only
veri
been
i.
you.nom.pl
It has then probably only been you.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.21 (1458-1538)
(44) a. Dat
it
is
is
hy.
he
W. Frisian
b. *Dat
it
is
is
him.
him
c. Dat IS m.
In the rst and the second person, on the other hand, accusative is always ungram-
matical (irrespective of focal stress and verb agreement), as illustrated for only the
rst person in only Dutch below:
(45) a. Dat
it
ben
am
ik.
I
/
/
*Dat
it
ben/is
am/is
mij.
me
b. Dat
it
zijn
are
wij.
we
/
/
*Dat
it
zijn/is
are/is
ons.
us
This is reminiscent of 1st/2nd versus 3rd person contrasts in other languages, for
instance the fact that agreement with nominative objects in Icelandic is possible
only in the 3rd person (Sigursson 1996; Boeckx 2000, etc.), and, in particu-
lar, the fact that accusative clitics can only be in the 3rd person in the presence
of a dative clitic in the double object construction in numerous languages, for
instance Romance and Slavic languages (the Person-Case Constraint, see Perlmut-
ter 1971; Bonet 1991, and, e.g., Anagnostopoulou 2003). It is not clear though,
whether there is a correlation between these widely discussed phenomena and
the Dutch/West Frisian facts above. I have not been able to nd any obvious
connection.
In spite of generally being predicate nominative languages, both Dutch and
West Frisian apply accusative in modal contexts, as opposed to Afrikaans, as il-
lustrated below:
(46) a. Ik
I
wil
want
jou
you.acc
zijn,
be,
jij
you
kan
can
mij
me.acc
zijn.
be
Dutch
b. Ik
I
wol
want
dy
you.acc
wze,
be,
do
you
kinst
can
my
me.acc
wze.
be
W. Frisian
c. Ek
I
wil
want
jy
you.nom
wees,
be,
jy
you
kan
can
ek
I.nom
wees.
be
Afrikaans
Similarly, Dutch and West Frisian opt for the accusative in conditionals, again as
opposed to Afrikaans:
(47) a. Als
if
ik
I
jou
you.acc
was
were
. . .
Dutch
b. At
if
ik
I
dy
you.acc
wie
were
. . .
W. Frisian
c. As
if
ek
I
jy
you.nom
was
were
. . .
Afrikaans
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.22 (1538-1603)
| Halldr rmann Sigursson
It seems, then, that Dutch and West Frisian are or have been developing in the
English direction, so to speak, along several different paths. A similar process can
be observed for Swedish (as discussed in part by Teleman 2001), but, interestingly,
the paths of the change are not always the same as in Dutch and West Frisian. Thus,
most speakers (who regularly distinguish between nominatives and accusatives)
accept only the nominative in conditionals (although the accusative is clearly less
marked here than in, e.g., (49) below):
(48) Om
if
jag
I
vore
were
du/?dig . . .
you.nom/?acc
In general, the nominative is the only option, it seems, when the predicative con-
struction expresses plain identity, as in the following examples (the rst one is
modelled on an example in Teleman 2001):
(49) a. Den
this
hr
here
lilla
little
pojken
boy.the
p
on
bilden
photo.the
r
is
jag/*mig.
I/*me
b. Han/Det
he/it
r/R
is/IS
inte
not
han/*honom.
he/*him
If, on the other hand, the predicative construction gets a reading where the pred-
icative DP takes on the role of the subject DP, rather than its identity, then the
predicate DP can be accusative for some speakers. This is illustrated below, where
the % sign indicates that the acceptability is subject to some speaker variation
(again, the a-example is based on Teleman 2001):
(50) a.
%
Jag
I.nom
ltsas
pretend
inte
not
vara
be
dig.
you.acc
Im not pretending to be you.
b.
%
Jag
I.nom
vill
want
vara
be
dig,
you.acc,
du
you.nom
kan
can
vara
be
mig.
me.acc
Also, as mentioned by Teleman (2001), accusative is the only option in most
reexive predicates, for most or all speakers:
18
(51) a. Jag
I
r
am
inte
not
lngre
longer
mig
me.acc
sjlv
(my)self
/
/
*jag
*I.nom
sjlv.
(my)self
Im not myself any more.
:8. Compatible facts are found for at least some Alemannic varieties. Philipp Conzett provides
the follwowing example from his Alemannic (spoken in Graubnden in easternmost Switzer-
land):
(i) I
I
bin
am
nmma
not-more
mi
my.acc
selber.
self
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.23 (1603-1679)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic ,
b. Han
he
r
is
inte
not
lngre
longer
sig
re.acc
sjlv
(him)self
/
/
*han
*he.nom
sjlv.
(him)self
He is not himself any more.
In addition, there is considerable case variation (both individual and for-
mal/informal) in comparative predicative phrases introduced by n than and som
as, like, accusative in general being more common than nominative in the spoken
language, whereas nominative is more typical of the written language (Teleman et
al. 1999, Vol. 3: 672ff.):
(52) a. Hon
she
r
is
strre
taller
n
than
jag/mig.
I/me
She is taller than me.
b. Karlar
chaps
som
as
vi/oss
we/us
gr
do
inte
not
s.
so
Chaps like us dont behave like that.
c. Hon
she
kan
can
inte
not
lska
love
en
a
karl
chap
som
like
jag/mig.
I/me
She cant love a chap like me.
Among the case-poor Germanic languages, Afrikaans is the most persistent pred-
icate nominative language. As for the case-rich Germanic languages, predicative
DPs in nite clauses in Icelandic, Faroese and standard German are, to my knowl-
edge, exclusively nominative.
19
Interestingly, however, some German varieties dis-
play at least some accusative tendencies. Thus, many speakers of the Ruhr-dialect
show the following pattern, with nominative pronominal predicative DPs but
(preferably) accusative full predicative DPs:
20
(53) a. Dat
that
bin
am
ich.
I
/
/
*Dat
*that
is
is
mich.
me
b. Dat
that
is
is
er.
he
/
/
*Dat
*that
is
is
ihn.
him
c. Dat
that
is
is
n
a
feinen
ne
Kerl.
chap.acc
:. I have not been able to get reliable information on Yiddish in this respect.
io. Ren Schiering, p.c. For full DPs, as in the c-example, the nominative is also grammatical,
but it is clearly marked as standard, non-colloquial, at least to uent speakers of the dialect. This
kind of Nom/Acc variation is probably found in other parts of the Low German area, but I have
no accurate information on its geographical distribution. Much descriptive work on the syntax
of German dialects or languages remains to be done.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.24 (1679-1717)
o Halldr rmann Sigursson
In contrast, speakers of Alemannic varieties accept some accusative pronominal
predicates, in many of the same environments as discussed above for Dutch and
West Frisian:
21
(54) a. Des
that
isch
is
(e)n
him.acc
doch.
though
That is him, for sure.
b. Wenn
if
ich
I
dich
you.acc
wr, . . .
were
c. Ich
I
will
want
dich
you.acc
si,
be,
du
you
kasch
can
mich
me.acc
si.
be
The historical development of the English predicative construction is usually de-
scribed in categorically distinct steps, as demonstrated below for the rst person
singular (based on the overview in Quinn 2005a: 243):
(55) a. Old English and Early Middle English: ic hit eom (I it am)
b. Late Middle English (Chaucer): it am I
c. Early Modern English: it is I
d. Modern English: it is me
What this describes is actually several changes. It is a well-known fact that each
change of this sort is typically a gradual process, spreading to different construc-
tions or grammatical domains at different times (see, e.g., the general discussion
in Fischer et al. 2000: 17ff.). The Germanic predicate Nom/Acc variation, so briey
outlined here, suggests that this also applied to the English changes sketched above.
The fact that we know only very few details of this history (see Visser 1963: 236ff.,
244ff.) is revealing about the limitations and challenges of diachronic linguis-
tics. Conversely, however, there is also an important positive lesson to be learned
about language change fromthe present study: Comparative studies of contempo-
rary language variation are likely to yield important, complementary information
about the paths and the nature of language change that is not readily accessible
through historical studies.
More importantly for our present purposes, the Germanic predicate Nom/Acc
variation suggests that the structural approach to the Nom/Acc alternation gener-
ally adopted in generative syntax must be abandoned. I discuss this issue in more
i:. Markus Benzinger, p.c. (his Alemannic variety is spoken in the southernmost Baden region
in Germany). As indicated, the pronoun is weak and the verb has focal stress in the a-example,
much as in corresponding examples in Dutch and West-Frisian (Ellen Brandner, p.c.). Also as
in Dutch and West Frisian, rst and second person predicative DPs must be nominative in plain
indicative, non-modal examples of this sort. Philipp Conzett tells me that only strong nomi-
native forms are possible in examples like (54a) in his Alemannic variety (Graubnden), wheres
accusative is the only option for him in conditionals and modal constructions, like (54b, c).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.25 (1717-1772)
detail in Section 4, after having discussed the nature of the relational (structural)
cases in Section 3.
. Relational case
On the relational view of the so-called structural cases, formulated in the Sibling
Correlation in (5) above, relational accusative is dependent on nominative being
present or active in the structure. That is, the true correlation Burzio (1986) tried
to capture with his famous generalization is not between the external role and the
internal case of a predicate but between its cases, nominative versus accusative or
case1 versus case2. Hence, it is not surprising that nominative is independent of
the other cases and also the simple case, normally used for DPs in lists and other
isolated DPs, as well as for DPs in simple structures (unergative, unaccusative, and,
in many languages, predicative), whereas other cases are typically added in more
complex structures (transitive, ditransitive).
Relational case assignment is seemingly a problemfor the minimalist bottom-
to-top approach to the derivation. The standard minimalist assumption (Chom-
sky 1995, 2000, 2002) is that accusative is assigned lower in the structure than
nominative and hence also before nominative is assigned. However, as we have
seen, accusative is dependent on nominative being present or active in the struc-
ture, that is, the accusative would have to know that nominative is going to
be assigned later on in the derivation. In other words, this forces us to assume
look-ahead, a fatal problem in minimalist approaches.
22
As I have argued elsewhere, however, the problem vanishes under the
Low Nominative Hypothesis (Sigursson 2004b, 2006), under which it is
actually the nominative argument that is merged lower and earlier than the
accusative argument:
(56) Nom is the rst case, Acc is the second case:
a. V [
1
] (and
1Nom
in morphology)
b.
2
[V
1
] (and
2Acc
in morphology)
ii. Since the computation is entirely dumb or blind, that is, does not plan things (even
though we can plan our sentences, which is a different but not an irrelevant issue). The
Nom/Acc problem might seem to be avoidable in a top-to-bottom approach (e.g. Phillips 2003;
Bianchi and Chesi 2005), but, in fact, such an approach fares no better than a bottom-to-top
approach. Thus, in a German clause beginning with a DP like Peter, the derivation would have
to look ahead downwards, as it were, in order to know if the DP is an experiencer dative, a
vocative (Peter!), a psych-accusative or a nominative.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.26 (1772-1845)
8 Halldr rmann Sigursson
As indicated, I assume that the cases temselves are not realized or assigned until in
morphology.
Later on in the derivation the low argument,
1(Nom)
, is raised across the
high argument,
2(Acc)
, to mach subject number and subject person, yielding the
normal surfcase order Nom-Acc:
(57)
2(Acc)
[V
1(Nom)
] nom . . .. acc . . .. NOM
The reason why the low argument,
1(Nom)
, can raise across the higher argument,
2(Acc)
, is that the features of the latter get fully matched or interpreted locally,
thus becoming syntactically inactive and invisible to external probing (frozen
in place, as Chomsky puts it (2001: 6)). Quirky systems differ from accusative
systems in this respect, arguably because quirky arguments do not get fully inter-
preted locally, but must match some relatively high feature in the clausal structure.
Hence, the quirky argument raises, leaving the nominative behind:
(58)
2(Quirky)
[V
1(Nom)
] quirky . . .. QUIRKY . . . nom
Thus, the nominative argument is the rst argument merged in both accusative
and quirky systems, but its order with respect to the second argument is reversed.
The evidence I have presented in favor of this approach is strong, but it is also
complicated, so I will not go through it here (but see Sigursson 2004b, 2006).
What matters for our purposes is only the following two points:
The cases themselves are not assigned until in morphology (an issue Ill return
to)
It is the argument that is merged rst that gets assigned nominative in mor-
phology
On the present relational approach, regular nominatives and accusatives function
as to make a morphologically visible distinction between distinct arguments of
a predicate. Hence, they do not depend on or match functional categories in the
clausal structure and are thus truly non-structural, although they morphologically
interpret or translate structural correlations. Nominative and accusative are sim-
ply traditional labels for the notions case1 versus case2. It follows, that there is no
inherent connection between nominative and nite Tense, contra the most popu-
lar generative view on case (Chomsky 1981, etc.). That is, the alleged Nom-Finite
T Connection is illusory (Sigursson 1989 and subsequent work; but see, e.g.,
Nomura 2005 for a somewhat different interpretation).
On this account, one would expect to nd nominatives in innitival construc-
tions. However, they cannot be expected to showup in the subject position of PRO
innitives in, e.g., the Germanic languages, since that position may never be lexi-
calized, irrespective of case (Sigursson 1991). Thus, we have to look for different
occurrences of innitival nominatives. Three types come into question:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.27 (1845-1923)
A. Nominative subjects in innitives that do allow subject lexicalization
B. Nominative objects (quirky)
C. Nominative predicative DPs
Icelandic is renowned for having certain exceptional nominative case-marking in-
nitives, (Sigursson 1989, 1996 and many others). Such innitives allow nomi-
native subjects (raised to the innitival subject position or not), as well as regular
nominative predicative DPs and quirky nominative objects:
(59) a. Mr
me.dat
hefur
has
alltaf
always
virst
seemed
[lafur
Olaf.nom
vera
be
snjall
clever
maur].
man.nom
To me, Olaf has always seemed to be a clever man.
b. Henni
her.dat
virtist
seemed
[hafa
have
leist
found-boring
strkarnir].
boys.the.nom
She seemed to have been bored by the boys.
c. a
there
virtust
seemed
[hafa
have
veri
been
veiddir
caught
fjrir
four
laxar].
salmon.nom
There seemed to have been four salmon caught.
d. a
there
voru
were
taldir
believed
[hafa
have
veri
been
veiddir
caught
fjrir
four
laxar].
salmon.nom
People believed there to have been four salmon caught.
As we would expect, Icelandic also has nominative objects and predicative DPs in
PRO innitives:
(60) a. Hn
she
vonaist
hoped
til
for
[a
to
leiast
nd-boring
ekki
not
allir
all.nom
stkarnir].
boys.the.nom
She hoped not to nd all the boys boring.
b. Hn
she
reyndi
tried
[a
to
vera
become
prestur].
priest.nom
She tried to become a priest.
c. [A
to
vilja
want
vera
become
kennari]!
teacher.nom
To want to become a teacher!
Moreover, Icelandic has nominative oating quantiers in innitives, apparently
agreeing in case with nominative PRO (Sigursson 1991):
(61) a. Strkarnir
boys.the.nom
vonuust
hoped
til
for
[a
to
vera
be
ekki
not
allir
all.nom
reknir].
red
The boys hoped not to all get red.
b. Strkana
boys.the.acc
langai
longed
ekki
not
til
for
[a
to
vera
be
allir
all.nom
reknir].
red
The boys did not want to all get red.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.28 (1923-1994)
|o Halldr rmann Sigursson
As seen in (61b), with an accusative matrix subject, the matrix subject is not the
source of the nominative of the quantier. Rather, the source must be internal
to the innitive. In all the examples in (59)(61), accusative, dative or genitive
forms instead of the bold-faced nominatives would be ungrammatical.
23
Most of this evidence is unavailable in the other Germanic languages, as
they lack the constructions bearing on the issue. One construction they all have,
however, is the predicative DP construction. As we would expect, the predicate
nominative languages generally apply nominative marking of predicative DPs in
(non-ECM) innitives as well as in nite clauses. This is illustrated below for
standard German, Swedish and Afrikaans, in that order:
(62) a. Es
it
reicht
sufces
mir
me
ich/*mich
I/*me
zu
to
sein.
be
It is good enough for me to be myself.
b. Det
it
rcker
sufces
fr
for
mig
me
att
to
vara
be
jag/*mig.
I/*me
c. Dit
it
is
is
vir
for
my
me
genoeg
enough
om
comp
ek/*my
I/*me
te
to
wees.
be
Interestingly, though, Dutch and Alemannic shift fromnominative to accusative in
(at least many) innitives and so does e.g. Italian, as illustratedbelow, in that order:
(63) a. Dat
it
ben
is
ik.
I
b. Het
it
is
is
niet
not
makkelijk
easy
om
comp
?
mij/*ik
?
me/*I
te
to
zijn.
be
It is not easy to be me.
(64) a. Des
it
bin
is
ich.
I
b. Es
it
langt
sufces
mer,
me.dat,
mich
me.acc
selber
self
zum
to
si.
24
be
(65) a. Sono
am
io/*me.
I/*me
b. Mi
me.cl
basta
sufces
essere
be
me
me.acc
stessa.
myself.fem.sg.
i. Whereas the oating quantier shows up in an oblique form if the innitive has
oblique PRO.
i|. Baden Alemannic, Markus Benzinger, p.c. However, Benzinger also tells me that the nomi-
native is possible or even preferred for at least some innitival predicative DPs, perhaps because
of a pressure from standard German. Graubnden Alemannic also shifts from nominative to
accusative in innitives like (65d) (Philipp Conzett, p.c.).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.29 (1994-2049)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic |:
All this shows two things. First, there is no inherent or general Nom-Finite T Con-
nection, that is, the common assumption that nominative case is dependent on
nite tense is plainly wrong, based on the absence of evidence in case-poor predi-
cate accusative languages like English. Second, however, languages that are devel-
oping from being predicate nominative into being predicate accusative languages
of the English type, may opt for accusatives instead of nominatives in innitival
constructions, much as they may opt for accusatives specically for weak third
person pronouns (Dutch, West Frisian, Baden Alemannic), for reexive predica-
tive DPs (Swedish, Graubnden Alemannic), or even for full DPs as opposed to
pronominal DPs (Ruhr-German). Thus, again, we see interesting evidence that a
historical change may develop along different paths in different languages (and in
different varieties of a language).
The inherent cases are semantically linked (Chomsky 2002: 113). As men-
tioned above, however, the semantics in question is not lexical semantics but
syntactic semantics, as it were. That is, the inherent cases generally seem not to
match or link to features of lexical roots, but rather to syntactic-semantic fea-
tures, for instance aspectual features and voice features. Plausibly, such features
are syntactic, being interpreted at both the interfaces, that is, semantically at the
conceptual interface but by case in the morphology (deep PF) of case languages.
If so, the inherent cases are structural, in a sense. In contrast, the relational or so-
called structural cases are not semantically linked, and they are not structurally
linked either, that is, they are not related to or licensed by functional categories
like Tense, Aspect, etc. Their sole function is to be morphologically distinctive
(Sigursson 2003), that is, they make an overt, morphological distinction between
distinct event participants (arguments), participant1 versus participant2, the
rst being assigned case1 and the latter being assigned case2 in morphology. In
other words, the virtue of the relational cases is that of making an overt distinc-
tion, for communicative and processing purposes, and not that of expressing any
semantic-syntactic functions.
|. The nature of the predicative Nom/Acc variation
Predicative constructions involve only one event participant (viewed fromtwo an-
gles, though). Thus, it is not surprising that many languages do not make any case
distinction between DPs and their predicates. Instead, case-rich languages com-
monly apply case agreement in predicative constructions. This is illustrated below
for the case-rich Germanic languages; the underlined subjects are all nominative:
(66) a. Er
he
ist
is
ein
a
guter
good
Schler
student.nom
/
/
*einen
*acc
guten Schler.
German
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.30 (2049-2104)
|i Halldr rmann Sigursson
b. Er
he
iz
is
a
a
guter
good
shiler
student.nom
/
/
*a
*acc
gutn shiler.
Yiddish
c. Hann
he
er
is
gur
good
nemandi
student.nom
/
/
*gan
*acc
nemanda.
Icelandic
d. Hann
he
er
is
ein
a
gur
good
stdentur
student.nom
/
/
*gan
*acc
stdent.
Faroese
Ancient Greek and Latin also applied this case copying or case agreement strategy
for predicates, whereas some other case-rich languages, including Finnish, Polish
and Russian, have a mixed system of case agreement versus a special predicative
case (partitive in Finnish, instrumental in Polish and Russian), depending on fac-
tors that I cannot go into here (but see, e.g., Karlsson 1985: 98ff.; Comrie 1997;
Bailyn 2001).
Predicative case agreement is not conned to nite clauses or to nominative
case. This is partly illustrated for Icelandic below:
(67) a. Hn
she.nom
er
is
gur
good
prestur.
priest.nom
She is a good priest.
b. Vi
we
teljum
consider
hana
her.acc
vera
be
gan
good
prest.
priest.acc
We consider her to be a good priest.
c. Vi
we
kynntumst
got-to-know
henni
her.dat
sem
as
gum
good
presti.
priest.dat
We got to know her as a good priest.
d. Vi
we
leituum
seeked
til
to
hennar
her.gen
sem
as
gs
good
prests.
priest.gen
We conded in her as a good priest.
English type accusative marking of predicatative DPs seems to be highly excep-
tional in case-rich languages (i.e., languages that have some case-marking of full
DPs). That is, case-rich languages quite generally seem to apply either case agree-
ment in predicative constructions or a special predicative case. As we saw above,
Ruhr-German and Allemannic varieties are exceptional in this respect, and Stan-
dard Arabic is another language with case-marking of full DPs and (some) Acc
predicates (see Benmamoun2000: 43), but these are the only exceptions I amaware
of. Thus it seems that we can formulate the following tentative Greenbergian type
universal (for nite constructions):
(68) With much greater than chance frequency, case-rich languages do not assign
accusative case to predicative nominals
On the present approach to the relational cases, this tendency is a rather natural
one. Assigning object case to predicative DPs is incompatible with the basic func-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.31 (2104-2163)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic |
tion of the relational cases, that of making a morphological distinction between
distinct arguments or event participants. In many case-rich languages, not only
predicative DPs but also adjectival and participial predicates agree in case, as illus-
trated below for Icelandic (the same was true of, e.g., Latin and Ancient Greek):
(69) a. Hn
she.nom
var
was
snjll
clever.nom.f.sg
/
/
kosin.
elected.nom.f.sg
b. Vi
we
tldum
blieved
hana
her.acc
hafa
have
veri
been
snjalla
clever.acc.f.sg
/
/
kosna.
elected.acc.f.sg
In a system like this, going from case agreement in predicates to general ac-
cusative marking would be a major change.
25
In case-poor languages, on the other
hand, accusative marking of predicates is a peripheral phenomenon, since it af-
fects only a fraction of all predicates, namely those rare predicates that consist of
pronominal DPs/NPs.
On the popular assumption that the relational cases are syntactic elements or
features (Chomsky 2000, etc.), predicative accusatives in languages like English
and Danish are left unaccounted for. The literature on the English predicative
construction is of course enormously voluminous (see Quinn 2005a), but it is
truly amazing how little interest the Germanic predicative Nom/Acc variation has
raised within generative approaches to case (with Maling & Sprouse 1995 as an
exception). As mentioned in Section 2.3, the reason is presumably that syntactic
approaches to the relational cases have little or nothing to say about this variation:
it is unexpected and mysterious under such approaches. Assuming that predica-
tive accusatives in English, Danish, Norwegian and North Frisian, is default (see
some of the references in Maling &Sprouse 1995: 167 and the discussion in Schtze
2001) is not insightful either. If accusative is default in the English type of lan-
guages, then nominative must in some sense be non-default or marked, which
would imply that these languages should be unique among the languages of the
world in assigning a marked case to subjects (in nite clauses) across the board.
Under the present, morphological approach to the relational cases, on the
other hand, the Germanic predicative case variation results from a simple and a
reasonable historical change. Languages like English and Danish have extended
the distinctive function of the relational cases from arguments to DPs in general,
that is, case-marking in these languages is not mysterius or due to grammatical
diseases but well-behaved, at least by and large. We can describe this informally in
terms of the following rules or directives of the two different grammars, stated in
i,. In West-Germanic varieties, in contrast, only predicate DPs get case marked. Thus, the above
mentioned accusative marking of certain predicates in Ruhr-Germanic and Alemannic varieties
is not nearly as pervasive a change as accusative marking of predicates would be in a language
like Icelandic.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.32 (2163-2209)
|| Halldr rmann Sigursson
(70). I refer to the grammars as Grammar q and Grammar w, abstaining from
calling them Grammar 1 and Grammar 2, because, as we have seen, evidence
from related languages suggests that these stages have been separated by several
intermediate grammars, whith the change from q to w only partly completed:
(70) Grammar q: Apply Nom/Acc to morphologically distinguish between the
rst and the second argument of a predicate.
Grammar w: Apply Nom/Acc to morphologically distinguish between the
rst and the second DP of a predicate.
However, Grammar w is evidently not the end-point of the development, as sug-
gested by the fact that many speakers of both English and Danish tend to make a
case distinction between adjacent DPs in general, even conjoined DPs, as in him
and I, ham og jeg, etc. (e.g. in the subject function as in Him and I went home, Ham
og jeg gik hjem).
26
Even though this is generally considered to be substandard in
English (see Huddleston & Pullum, et al. 2002: 462ff.), it is evidently frequent in
the spoken language (Quinn 2005a, 2005b).
Many factors interact with the basic function of the relational cases in the
English/Danish type of languages (see Henry 1995 and Quinn 2005b on Belfast
English versus New Zealand English).
27
Thus, as studied by Quinn, the relevant
factors in English include, e.g., the distinction between weak and strong pronouns
and the phonological heaviness or robustness of strong pronouns. Similarly,
many factors, above all the inherent cases, interfere with the basic function of
the relational cases in the Icelandic type of languages. The fundamental differ-
ence between these language types with respect to the distribution of Nom/Acc,
however, is that the English/Danish type has extended the distinctive function of
the relational cases from arguments to DPs as such.
io. See Johannessen (1998) for a discussion of this phenomenon in some other languages,
including Norwegian.
i. Conjoined subjects like Him and I have agreement correlates in Belfast English as described
by Henry (1995), in contrast to New Zealand English, where conjoined subjects always seem
to trigger plain plural agreement, regardless of case and other factors (Him and I have . . . , Me
and him have . . . , etc.; Heidi Quinn, p.c.). This fact about New Zealand English suggests that
the nominative-verb agreement connection observed in many languages is a more supercial
phonomenonthanoften assumed(see Sigursson2003 and subsequent work on this connection
in Icelandic morphology).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.33 (2209-2270)
The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic |,
,. Conclusion
The language of Narrow Syntax is understandable but foreign to both the in-
terfaces (or, if one likes, to the articulatory and conceptual organs). That is, the
interfaces do not speak Narrow Syntax, they interpret it and translate it into their
own languages.
This is perhaps not so clear if one only considers morphologically poor lan-
guages like English. However, a simple comparison of English with a language like
Icelandic immediately reveals that some languages have an extremely complex
morphophonological component that is largely absent from analytic languages
like English. Consider the following rather simple examples (N, A = nominative,
accusative, m.pl = masculine plural):
(71) a. Allir
all
N.m.pl
essir
these
N.m.pl
dmarar
judges
N.m.pl
voru
were
ind.3pl
taldir
believed
N.m.pl
vera
be
N.m.pl
tnefndir.
nominated
All these judges were believed to be nominated.
b. Vi
we
N
tldum
believed
ind.1pl
alla
all
A.m.pl
essa
these
A.m.pl
dmara
judges
A.m.pl
vera
be
A.m.pl
tnefnda.
nominated
We believed all these judges to be nominated.
Icelandic and English are relatively closely related languages, but the morpholog-
ical differences between them are tremendous. Some of these differences can be
seenas resulting fromIcelandic being explicit about categories that English is cool
or reluctant about expressing. Thus, English arguably has a syntactic-semantic
distinction between subjunctive and indicative, although it mostly keeps quiet
about it in its morphology. In contrast, it is not clear that the abundant case and
agreement morphology of Icelandic is telling us something about the syntactic-
semantic structure of both languages that English is being silent about. Icelandic
explicitly distinguishes between full DP arguments by relational case-marking,
as in (71), but this distinction is evidently an unnecessary extravagance.
28
The
agreement in case, number and gender is even less meaningful, that is, it ar-
guably arises through feature copying processes in (deep PF) morphology (as
argued in Sigursson 2004b). From a linguistic point of view, this copying is mor-
i8. Or else we should nd such marking in all languages. It has sometimes been suggested
that Icelandic case-marking is decorative, as opposed to case-marking in related languages.
This is rather obviously wrong. Case-marking in all languages is useful or functional from a
parsing/processing point of view but unnecessary or decorative from a strictly linguistic or
grammatical point of view (i.e. it is not indispensable for a message to get through). Icelandic
case-marking is clearly no different from e.g. Latin, German or Russian case-marking in this
respect.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.34 (2270-2327)
|o Halldr rmann Sigursson
phological noise. It probably has the socially important function of signaling the
group identity of speakers, but it has arguably no linguistic function. If it had, we
would expect English to be seriously inferior to Icelandic. That does not seem to
be the case.
The present study highlights the fact that morphological case interprets syntax
in its own terms or its own language rather than directly expressing or mirroring
it. Thus, to mention only one of the many case contrasts we have seen, there is
arguably no Narrow Syntax difference between, e.g., Danish Det er os (it is us)
and its Swedish translation Det r vi (it is we). Rather, exactly the same syntactic
structure gets different interpretations in morphology.
We need to return to the traditional view that case is a morphological (PF)
phenomenon.
29
Both relational and inherent cases are morphological translations
or interpertations of syntactic structures, but they are not present or active in syn-
tax themselves, that is, there are no Nom or Acc features in syntax (or Dat or
Gen, for that matter). All the alleged syntactic effects of relational or structural
case stemfrommatching of interpretable features, typically person and number in
accusative systems (Sigursson 2003, 2004a, 2004b, etc.) but often aspect, tense
or focus in different systems (cf. Miyagawa to appear). Nom and Acc as such are
nonexistent in Narrow Syntax. It is thus no wonder that they are invisible to the
semantic interface (as discussed by Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2002, etc.).
This entails that the overt morphophonological forms of languages are only
indirect and incomplete reections of the language faculty (reminding of Platos
cave allegory). The inevitable conclusion, unwelcome and distressing as it may be,
is that there is no such thing as plain, overt evidence in syntax. The study of syntax
is a much more difcult task than most of us would like to believe, demanding
that we compare a range of languages and listen to the semantic intepretation of
syntax no less than to its widely differing morphological translations. If a category
does not get a semantic interpretation in any of the languages we study, then it
is probably just a language specic morphological (PF) category, with the basic
function of making an overt distinction, a noble and useful enough function as
such. Like a phoneme.
References
Allan, R., Holmes, P., & Lundskr-Nielsen, T. (1995). Danish: A comprehensive grammar.
London: Routledge.
i. See also Sigursson 2004b for a parallel conclusion regarding gender and number, argu-
ing that we must distinguish syntactic-semantic gender and number from their morphological
translations, that is, from formal gender and number.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.35 (2327-2444)
Allen, C. L. (1996). A change in structural case-marking in Early Middle English. In H.
Thrinsson, S. D. Epstein, & S. Peter (Eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II
(pp. 320). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton.
Bailyn, J. (2001). The syntax of Slavic predicate case. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 22, 123.
Bardal, J. (2001). Case in Icelandic ASynchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach. Lund:
Department of Scandinavian Languages.
Bardal, J. (2006). Construction-specic properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and
German. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 39106.
Benmamoun, E. (2000). The Structure of Functional Categories: A comparative study of Arabic
dialects. Oxford: OUP.
Bianchi, V. & Chesi, C. (2005). Phases, strong islands, and computational nesting. Ms.,
University of Siena (presented at GLOW 28, 2005, Geneva).
Boeckx, C. (2000). Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica, 54, 354380.
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance languages. PhD
dissertation, MIT.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Burzio, L. (2000). Anatomy of a generalization. In E. Reuland (Ed.), Argument and Case:
Explaining Burzios generalization (pp. 195240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Uriagareka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp.
89155). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language
(pp. 152). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On Nature and Language. (Ed. by A. Belletti & L. Rizzi). Cambridge: CUP.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York NY:
OUP.
Comrie, B. (1997). The typology of predicate case marking. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, &
S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type (pp. 3950).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eklund, B. (1982). Jag sg han: Om objektsformer av personliga pronomen i nordsvenskan [I
saw he: On object forms of personal pronouns in Northern Swedish]. In C. Elert & S. Fries
(Eds.), Nordsvenska: sprkdrag i vre Norrlands ttorter (pp. 161173). Stockholm: Almquist
& Wiksell.
Eythrsson, Th. (2000). Dative versus nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds
Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 2744.
Eythrsson, Th. & Bardal, J. (2005). Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance.
Language, 81, 824881.
Eythrsson, Th. & Jnsson, J. (2003). The case of subject in Faroese. Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax, 72, 207231.
Faarlund, J., Lie, S., & Vannebo, K. (1997). Norsk referensegrammatikk (Norwegian Reference
Grammar). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & van der Wurf, W. (2000). The Syntax of Early
English. Cambridge: CUP.
Fossum, S. (1995). Kasusvakling ved personlige pronomen (Case Variation of Personal
Pronouns). MA thesis, University of Oslo.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.36 (2444-2557)
|8 Halldr rmann Sigursson
van Gelderen, E. (1997). Verbal Agreement and the Grammar behind its Breakdown: Minimalist
feature checking. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
Haider, H. (1984). The case of German. In J. Toman (Ed.), Studies in German Grammar (pp.
65101). Dordrecht: Foris.
Haider, H. (2000). The license to license. In E. Reuland (Ed.), Argument and Case: Explaining
Burzios generalization (pp. 3154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haider, H. (2001). How to stay accusative in insular Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian
Syntax, 68, 114.
Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting.
New York NY: OUP.
Holmberg, A. (1986). The distribution of case-neutral pronouns in a Swedish dialect. In .
Dahl & A. Holmberg (Eds.), Scandinavian Syntax (pp. 88100). Institute of Linguistics,
University of Stockholm.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. et al. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge: CUP.
Johannessen, J. (1998). Coordination. New York NY: OUP.
Jnsson, J. (1998). Sagnir me aukafallsfrumlagi (Verbs with a quirky subject). slenskt ml og
almenn mlfri, 1920, 1143.
Jnsson, J. (2003). Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In E. Brandner & H. Zinzmeister
(Eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory (pp. 127163). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
Kainhofer, J. (2002). Monadische Akkusativ-Subjekt-Konstruktionen im islndischem
(Monadic Accusative-subject Constructionen in Icelandic). Magister thesis, University of
Salzburg.
Karlsson, F. (1985). Finsk Grammatik (Finnish Grammar). (6th edition). Helsinki: Suomalaisen
Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Kratzer, A. (1996). Serving the external argument fromthe verb. In J. Rooryck &L. Zaring (Eds.),
Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lehman, T. (1993). A Grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of
Linguistics and Culture.
Levander, L. (1909). lvdalsmlet i Dalarna: Ordbjning ock syntax. Stockholm.
Maling, J. (1993). Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical
case in Finnish. In A. Holmberg & U. Nikanne (Eds.), Case and other Functional Categories
in Finnish Syntax (pp. 4974). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maling, J. (2002a). Icelandic verbs with dative objects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax,
70, 159.
Maling, J. (2002b). a rignir gufalli slandi. Verbs with dative objects in Icelandic. slenskt
ml og almenn mlfri, 24, 31105.
Maling, J. & Sprouse, R. (1995). Structural case, specier-head relations, and the case of
predicate NPs. In H. Haider, S. Olsen, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic
Syntax (pp. 167186). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Maling, J. & Sigurjnsdttir, S. (2002). The new impersonal construction in Icelandic. The
Journal of Comparative Germanic Lnguistics, 5, 97142.
McFadden, T. (2004). The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A study on the
syntax-morphology interface. PhD dissertation, Univeristy of Pennsylvania.
McIntyre, A. (2005). The interpretation of German datives and English have. To appear in D.
Hole, A. Meinunger, & W. Abraham (Eds.), Datives and Other Cases: Between argument
structure and event structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Miyagawa, S. (To appear). On the EPP. MITWPL: Proceedings of the EPP/Phase Workshop.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.37 (2557-2681)
Nomura, M. (2005). Nominative Case and AGREE(ment). PhD dissertation, University of
Connecticut.
Ottosson, K. (1988). A feature based approach to thematic roles. In V. Rosn (Ed.), Papers from
the Tenth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp. 136150). Bergen.
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York NY: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Phillips, C. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 3790.
Pylkknen, L. (1999). Causation and external arguments. Papers from the UPenn/MIT Round-
table on the Lexicon, MITWPL, 35, 161183.
Quinn, H. (2005a). The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Quinn, H. (2005b). Licensing, blocking, and English pronoun case. Paper presented at the
International Conference of Historical Linguistics in Madison, August 2005.
Reinhammar, M. (1973). Om dativ i svenska och norska dialekter. 1. Dativ vid verb (On dative in
Swedish and Norwegian dialects. 1. Dative with verbs). Uppsala.
Schtze, C. (2001). On the nature of default case. Syntax, 4, 205238.
Sigursson, H. (1989). Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Lund University. (Republished 1992
in Reykjavik: Institute of Linguistics).
Sigursson, H. (1991). Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments.
Sigursson, H. (1996). Icelandic nite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax,
57, 146.
Sigursson, H. (2003). Case: Abstract vs morphological. In E. Brandner &H. Zinzmeister (Eds.),
New Perspectives on Case Theory (pp. 223268). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
Sigursson, H. (2004a). The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of
Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 16, 219251 (Eds. V. Bianchi & K. Sar).
Sigursson, H. (2004b). Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. Working Papers in Scandinavian
Syntax, 74, 142 (A revised version to appear 2006 in C. Boeckx (Ed.), Agreement Systems
(pp. 201237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Sigursson, H. (2004c). Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. In W. Abraham (Ed.),
Focus on Germanic Typology (pp. 61103). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Sigursson, H. (2004d). Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. Linguistic Variation Yearbook,
4, 235259.
Sigursson, H. (2006). The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis. Linguistic
Inquiry, 37, 289308.
Sigurjnsdttir, S. & Maling, J. (2001). a var hrint mr leiinni sklann: olmynd ea ekki
olmynd? (It was pushed me on the way to school: Passive or not?). slenskt ml og almenn
mlfri, 23, 123180.
Smith, H. (1996). Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge: CUP.
Svenonius, P. (2005). The nanosyntax of the Icelandic passive. Paper presented at the Lund
Grammar Colloquium, May 26, 2005.
Telemann, U. (2001). Mig vara du (Me be you). Sprkvrd, 12001, 2627.
Telemann, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska Akademiens grammatik, 14.
Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.
Thrinsson, H. (1979). On Complementation in Icelandic. New York NY: Garland.
Thrinsson, H., Petersen, H., Jacobsen, J., & Hansen, Z. (2004). Faroese: An overview and
reference grammar. Trshavn: Foroya Frodskaparfelag.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:25/09/2006; 12:01 F: LA9701.tex / p.38 (2681-2725)
,o Halldr rmann Sigursson
Tyroller, H. (2003). Grammatische Beschreibung des Zimbrischen von Lusern. Suttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag.
Visser, F. (1963). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part 1: Syntactic Units with One
Verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Wiese, H. & Maling, J. (2005). Beers, kaf, and Schnaps: Different grammatical options for
restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17,
138.
Woolford, E. (2003). Burzios Generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nomina-
tive objects. In E. Brandner & H. Zinzmeister (Eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory (pp.
301329). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
Wunderlich, D. (2003). Optimal case patterns: German and Icelandic compared. In E. Brandner
&H. Zinzmeister (Eds.), NewPerspectives on Case Theory (pp. 331367). Stanford CA: CSLI
Publications.
Yip, M., Maling, J., & Jackendoff, R. (1987). Case in Tiers. Language, 63, 217250.
Zaenen, A. & Maling, J. (1984). Unaccusative, Passive and Quirky Case. Proceedings of the Third
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 317329. Stanford University.
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thrinsson, H. (1985). Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic
passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 441483.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.1 (48-132)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization
and predication
*
Olaf Koeneman
Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam
It is argued that Holmbergs Generalization is a syntactic rather than phonolog-
ical phenomenon. This view allows us to generalize over a larger set of facts in the
following way: Within the thematic domain, it is impossible to invert the rela-
tionships of thematic categories, i.e. categories assigning or receiving a -role.
The reason is that the grammar wants the interface interpretations at LF and PF
to be uniform. It is shown that notorious counterexamples to thematic isomor-
phism, such as passivization and short verb movement, can be dealt with in a
unied way by making reference to predication theory.
:. Introduction
A central issue in Scandinavian linguistics concerns observable restrictions on
movement of object DPs. It is well known that object shift is contingent on verb
movement, as shown in (1). In (1a), the verb has left its base position due to verb
second and we observe that the object can precede negation, which by hypothesis
marks the left edge of VP. In (1b), however, the verb second position is occupied
by an auxiliary and the lexical verb remains in its base position. Therefore, object
shift is impossible. In Swedish, verb second only regularly occurs in main clauses.
This means that in embedded clauses the lexical verb remains in situ. As expected,
object shift again leads to ungrammaticality (cf. (1c)).
* I would like to thank Ad Neeleman, Kriszta Szendroi, Anders Holmberg, ystein Nilsen, the
members of the Groningen syntax seminar (especially Mark de Vries), the audience at the 20th
Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop in Tilburg, Andrew McIntyre and an anonymous re-
viewer for valuable criticism, suggestions and/or providing data. I take full responsibility for the
way I made use of them.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.2 (132-187)
,i Olaf Koeneman
(1) a. Jag
I
kysste
j
kissed
henne
i
her
inte
not
t
j
t
i
(Swedish)
b. *Jag
I
har
have
henne
i
her
inte
not
kysst
kissed
t
i
c. *Det
It
r
is
troligt
probable
att
that
de
they
den
i
it
lste
read-past
t
i
The debate about object shift largely concerns two issues: (i) what is the proper
generalization and (ii) what explains it? Obviously, ones view on (i) has impli-
cations for ones view on (ii), as the generalization may suggest the nature of
the account. In recent theorizing, however, consensus has not been reached as to
whether the phenomenon is for instance phonological or syntactic. Two views are
dominant.
The most pervasive one is probably the view holding that the phonological
component cannot handle (1b) and (1c). Holmberg (1999) argues that what is at
stake is some form of adjacency between the object and its trace, which is dis-
rupted in the ungrammatical cases. Bobaljik (2002) argues that the lexical verb
must be adjacent to a higher functional head, INFL or PART, and that the object
in (1b) and (1c) is the element disrupting this adjacency. Fox and Pesetsky (2005)
adopt a cyclic spell-out model and argue that object shift in (1b) and (1c) leads to
PF-ordering paradoxes in a way that will be discussed later.
The second view centres around the notion shape conservation. The main
idea here is that object shift without verb movement leads to a reversal of the mu-
tual order between the verb and object. What rules this out, however, is not so
much that some spell-out procedure is disrupted but that the movement of the
object across the verb itself distorts isomorphism. Although one could in princi-
ple imagine a theory in which detection of this distortion takes place at PF, it is
not for reasons of PF itself that (1b) and (1c) are ungrammatical. Rather, object
shift has to obey particular syntactic rules guiding the derivational process or, in a
more representational viewon this, there should be isomorphismbetween a repre-
sentation before and after the relevant movements. Although some formulation of
shape conservation has been entertained as the relevant notion for the data in (1)
by Mller (2000) and Kathol (2000) and for Continental Germanic scrambling
by Williams (2003), the idea has not been fully worked out for the larger set of
data that normally enters the discussion of object shift. The purpose of this pa-
per is to do just that and present shape conservation as a viable alternative to the
PF-approaches. I will argue that object shift and data pertaining to particle con-
structions, double object constructions and object-to-subject raising require an
additional constraint, probably syntactic, if the accounts by Holmberg, Bobaljik
and Fox and Pesetsky are adopted as an explanation for Holmbergs generalization.
In the alternative offered here, shape conservation, formulated as a syntactic map-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.3 (187-240)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication ,
ping rule operating between PF and LF, does the work. A central role is played by
predication theory (Williams 1980 and subsequent work). Note that in a VO lan-
guage, analytic passive is not shape conserving, as the object clearly ends up at the
other side of the verb. Although this might seem enough to rule out shape conser-
vation as an explanation for the data, I will show that adopting predication theory
allows us to let shape conservation make the right decisions as to which move-
ments Scandinavian syntax allows and which not. In addition, the combination of
shape conservation and predication theory has a few favourable consequences, as
I will show.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I will look in detail at the PF-
oriented proposals mentioned above. This discussion will lead to a clearer under-
standing of the details involved and introduce the relevant data. Section 3 explores
the syntactic alternative for object shift in terms of shape conservation. Sections 4
and 5 extend the analysis to particle constructions and object-to-subject raising.
Section 6 addresses two problems for the analysis. Finally, Section 7 provides a
summary and outlook on further research.
i. Restrictions on object shift as a phonological phenomenon
In this section, I will discuss in more detail the three phonological approaches to
object shift mentioned in the introduction. The purpose is to highlight the data
that have (or have not) been taken as part of the generalization accounting for
object shift, as well as to point out the limitations that phonological approaches
encounter.
There are two interpretations of what is now known as Holmbergs gener-
alization. The narrow interpretation is that verb movement feeds object shift,
illustrated by the data in (1). In fact, Holmberg (1986, 1999) originally proposed
a broader denition which also pertains to particle and double object construc-
tions. For him, (1b) and (1c) are ungrammatical for the same reason that (2a)
and (2b) are.
(2) a. *Dom
They
kastade
threw
mej
i
me
inte
not
ut
out
t
i
(Swedish)
b. *Jag
I
gav
gave
den
i
it
inte
not
Elsa
Elsa
t
i
What unites themis that object shift across a VP-adjoined adverb or negation leads
to ungrammaticality if some VP-internal element, x, disrupts adjacency between
the moved object and its trace, as schematized in (3):
(3) object [
VP
adverb [
VP
x t
object
]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.4 (240-320)
,| Olaf Koeneman
In (1b, c) x is the unmoved verb, in (2a) it is a particle and in (2b) it is the in-
direct object. Evidence for the blocking nature of these elements comes from the
observation that moving them to a position to the left of the shifted object leads
to a grammatical result. In (1a), we already saw that V-to-C movement of the
main verb feeds object shift. So does topicalizing the verb (phrase), the particle
or indirect object to spec-CP, as shown in (4):
(4) a. Kysst
j
Kissed
har
have
jag
I
henne
i
her
inte
not
t
j
(Swedish)
b. UT
j
Out
kastade
threw
dom
they
mej
i
me
inte
not
t
j
t
i
c. Henne
j
Her
visar
show
jag
I
den
i
it
hels
rather
not
not
t
j
t
i
Further evidence comes from particle constructions in Norwegian, Danish and
Icelandic. In contrast to Swedish, these languages have a Part-DP/DP-Part alter-
nation (sometimes referred to with the non-neutral label particle shift), i.e. the
particle optionally (Norwegian, Icelandic) or obligatorily (Danish) appears after
the object. This is true even if the object is a full DP, rather than a pronoun. As
in Danish and Norwegian only pronouns but not full DPs can undergo object
shift, the facts in (5bd) show that the order object-particle can be independently
generated in these languages and that this order is not a result of object shift.
(5) a. Vi
we
slpte
let
<ut>
out
hunden
the.dog
<*ut>
out
(Swedish)
b. Jeg
I
skrev
wrote
<*op>
up
nummeret/det
number.the/it
<op>
up
(Danish)
c. Jeg
I
skrev
wrote
<opp>
up
nummeret/det
number.the/it
<opp>
up
(Norwegian)
d. Vi
We
hentum
let
<t>
out
hundinum
dog.the
<t>
out
(Icelandic)
As expected, object shift in these contexts is only allowed in Danish, Norwe-
gian and Icelandic, as the object does not have to cross the VP-internal particle.
Compare the fact in (2a) with the data in (6):
(6) a. Jeg
I
skrev
wrote
det
i
it
mske
maybe
ikke
not
t
i
op
up
(Danish)
b. De
They
kaste
threw
meg
i
me
ikke
not
t
i
ut
out
(Norwegian)
c. Vi
We
hentum
let
hundinum
i
the.dog
ekki
not
t
i
t
out
(Icelandic)
Thus, Holmbergs original generalization accounts for more facts than those in
(1). It conjures up two issues. First, note that in order to observe object shift in
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.5 (320-386)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication ,,
contexts that do not contain a particle, indirect object or main verb in its base po-
sition (that is, in legitimate contexts), a VP-adjoined adverb is necessary. In that
event, we see the object appear to the left of this adverb, showing that it has shifted.
However, this implies that, for some poorly understood reason, adverbs are al-
lowed to appear between the object and its trace: they are PF-invisible. This poses
a problem for an analysis based on PF-adjacency (cf. Bobaljik 2002 for a possible
solution). A second issue is what to make of object-to-subject raising (as in pas-
sive and unaccusative constructions), a process that Holmberg does not discuss.
Since the object will have to cross the main verb on its way to the subject position,
the verb will subsequently intervene between the subject and its trace in object
position in Holmbergs analysis.
(7)
Like Germanic languages in general, Swedish readily allows passivization, however:
(8) Han
He
blev
was
verkrd
hit
av
by
en
a
bil i
car
gr
yesterday
(Swedish)
Obviously, there is no a priori guarantee that object shift (OS, from now on) and
passivization should be similar processes for the present purposes but there is,
however, an interesting fact pointing towards their similarity. As shown in Bobaljik
(2002), just as object shift is ungrammatical in a Swedish particle construction, so
is passivization:
(9) *Skrpet
Scrap.the
mste
must
bli
be
kastat
thrown
ut
out
(Swedish)
In contrast, passivization is grammatical in Icelandic, Norwegian and Danish,
the languages that also allow object shift in particle constructions. Examples of
Norwegian and Danish are given in (10):
(10) a. Hunden
dog.the
blev
was
smedet
thrown
ud
out
(Danish)
b. Hunden
dog.the
ble
was
sluppet
let
ut
out
(Norwegian)
On the basis of this parallel, Bobaljik argues that the particle and passivization
data should not be included in Holmbergs generalization, which is thus narrowed
down to the data in (1). He proposes to treat these core data on a par with his
earlier (1995) analysis of English do-support. Just as negation distorts adjacency
between inection in I and the verb in (11a), so does the object between participial
inection and Vin (11b (=1b)) and between nite inection and Vin (11c (=1c)):
(11) a.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.6 (386-451)
,o Olaf Koeneman
b. (Swedish)
c. (Swedish)
In passive and unaccusative constructions, the object lands in a position higher
than I, so that it will not interfere with I/Part-V adjacency. The particle and pas-
sivization data, however, should now be covered by yet to be determined syntactic
restrictions on A-movement (cf. especially Anagnostopoulou 2002, 2003 for an ex-
plicit account). In addition, Bobaljik assumes that illegitimate object shift across
an indirect object in Swedish (cf. (2b)) is ruled out by similar syntactic restrictions.
Just as with particle constructions, he argues, there is a parallel between OS and
passivization. He shows that the indirect object not only blocks OS but also blocks
passivization. This can be observed in Danish and Icelandic.
(12) a. *Bogen
book.the
blev
was
givet
given
Jens
Jens
(Danish)
b. *Peningunum
Money.the
var
was
skila
returned
Jni
Jon
(Icelandic)
In this case, however, it is less clear what the correlation is. The presence of an in-
direct object can indeed block both OS and passivization but does not necessarily
do so within the same language. In fact, Swedish allows passivization of a direct
object across an indirect object.
(13) Medaljen
Medal.the
blev
was
frrad
presented
Johan
Johan
(Swedish)
Hence, there is no correlation between (un)grammaticality of OS across an indi-
rect object and (un)grammaticality of passivization of a direct object across an
indirect object. As passivization possibilities in double object constructions do
not correlate with other facts here discussed, I take them to be dependent on
language-specic properties unrelated to the generalization that we are trying to
establish and explain (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003 who argues that the ungram-
maticality of DO-to-subject raising in double object constructions has different
sources cross-linguistically).
Holmbergs and Bobaljiks proposal have two features in common. Both have
to assume that adverbs are invisible. After all, adverbs can appear between the head
of IP or PartP and Vin Bobaljiks account without any problem. Second, both need
two rules, one phonological and one syntactic, to capture the data discussed so far.
The main difference is that they draw the line differently.
Fox and Pesetsky basically draw the line where Holmberg draws it but offer a
distinct explanation. They argue that moving an object across an unmoved verb
creates an ordering conict. They adopt a multiple spell-out approach, in which
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.7 (451-531)
pieces of structure are spelled out before the complete derivation of the sentence is
nished. Intermediate spell-out points are determined by phases, which they take
to be VP and CP. At the level of VP, the order V>object will be added to a list of
ordering statements in Swedish (cf. (14a)). If the object subsequently moves out
of the VP, spell-out of a higher phase, CP, will add the order object>V to the list of
ordering statement (cf. (14b)) and an ordering conict ensues.
(14) a. [
VP
V object] Ordering statement: V > object
b. [
CP
. . . object
i
. . . [
VP
V t
i
]] Ordering statement: object > V
To stay out of such a paradoxical situation, the derivation must somehow preserve
the order within VP at the level of CP. Hence, object shift is only allowed if the
verb moves to C and ends up in a position again preceding the object.
What in addition to the data in (1) follows fromthis approach without further
assumptions is the fact that OS across a particle or indirect object is just as bad,
leading to ordering conicts between object and particle or object and indirect
object. Hence, Fox and Pesetsky capture Holmbergs original generalization. What
also follows is that OS is possible across a particle, indirect object or a main verb,
if these elements are subsequently topicalized to spec-CP after OS (cf. (4)). Spell-
out of VP will give IO/particle/V>object, and object shift plus topicalization of
IO/particle/V(P) to spec-CP will repeat this same ordering at the CP-level. Hence,
no conict arises. In other words, topicalization here restores order preservation
that is distorted at an intermediate state by object shift.
What does not follow immediately is the fact that wh-movement of the ob-
ject to spec-CP is allowed. After all, this operation reverses the order between verb
and the object as established within VP. Fox & Pesetsky therefore assume that wh-
movement rst targets the left edge of the VP, so that spell-out of VP gives the order
object-V. Movement to spec-CP then does not create a conict, as the nal order
mimics the order spelled out at the VP-level. It has been noted (cf. Bobaljik 2005;
Anagnostopoulou 2005; Nilsen 2005) that the unavailability of the left edge land-
ing site for OS (and the availability of it for wh-movement) now boils down to a
necessary stipulation for the proposal to work, which makes the explanation rather
ad hoc. This becomes a real drawback once subject-to-object raising is brought in.
Like Holmberg, Fox and Pesetsky do not discuss passivization. This process ob-
viously reverses the VP-level ordering statement, V>object, at the next phase. In
order to allow it, F&P are forced to assume that passivization involves movement
that rst makes the object land at the VP-edge, just like objects undergoing wh-
movement. This raises two problems. Conceptually, the account would again boil
down to stipulating for a particular movement operation whether it can land at
the VP-edge or not. Second, if passivization were movement to the VP-edge, just
like wh-movement, object-to-subject movement should be able to cross not only
the main verb but also a particle. As we have seen (cf. (9)), Swedish shows that this
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.8 (531-579)
,8 Olaf Koeneman
prediction is wrong.
1
By necessity, then, F&P cannot offer a uniform explanation
for why particles in Swedish block both OS and passivization. Hence, it is unclear
whether F&P will assume passivization to be movement to the VP-edge or not but
either position is problematic.
Having discussed three PF-oriented approaches, we can now draw up the
following overview.
(15)
Pattern Example Holmberg Bobaljik Fox & Pesetsky this article
OK
V OB (1a) PF PF PF SC
* OB
i
V t
i
(1b, c) PF PF PF SC
* OB
i
Prt. t
i
(2a) PF syntax PF SC
* OB
i
IO t
i
(2b) PF syntax PF SC
OK
V
i
V
n.
OB
j
t
i
t
j
(4a) PF PF PF SC
OK
Prt
j
V
i
OB
k
t
i
t
j
t
k
(4b) PF PF PF SC
OK
IO
j
V
i
OB
k
t
i
t
j
t
k
(4c) PF PF PF SC
OK
DO
i
t
i
Prt (6) PF syntax PF SC
* SU
i
AUX V Prt t
i
(9) syntax syntax syntax SC
OK
SU
i
AUX V t
i
Prt (10) syntax syntax syntax SC
OK
SU
i
AUX V IO t
i
(13) syntax PF syntax SC
Given the discussion above, I conclude that there are basically two generalizations
to be accounted for: (i) verbs and indirect object DPs block OS but allow object-
to-subject raising (ii) pre-object particles block both OS and object-to-subject
raising. In the next section, I will start developing an approach that explains both
generalizations in a unied way. The goal is to show that, in combination with
:. Richards (2004) points out an important conceptual aw in F&Ps analysis. The rationale be-
hind a phase is that it is a computational unit. Once nished, the computational system sends it
to the interfaces and can forget about its content. In F&Ps approach, however, the content of a
nished phase must remain accessible for ordering paradoxes to arise. This raises the question
of why one should want to have phases in the rst place. Richards offers an alternative phasal ac-
count of Holmbergs generalization and argues for word order parameters at PF. Within the rst
phase (which for him is vP), the word order between V and object is set to be either consistently
VO or OV. Hence, movement of an object across a verb will clash with the parameter-setting of
a VO-language under the assumption that OS is phase-internal movement. Wh-movement of
the object and passivization differ from OS in that they move the object rst to the phase-edge
and then to a position outside of the phase. All movements that leave the phase thus make an
intermediate landing, a possibility that had to be stipulated for some movements in F&Ps ap-
proach. Under the assumption that intermediate traces are irrelevant, these movements do not
clash with the parameter-setting of a VO language. Although this approach solves the problem
of passivization, it is less clear how the particle and double object facts can be incorporated. Like
F&P, Richards predicts passivization across a particle in Swedish to be possible. Hence, Richards
approach is superior to F&Ps but similar in not aiming at unication of all the facts discussed.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.9 (579-642)
predication theory, shape conservation pertaining to thematic categories makes
the right predictions.
. Shape conservation as an explanation for object shift
The main idea of this section is that, within a particular domain, the mutual
relationships between thematic elements, whether they are -role assigning or re-
ceiving, should remain constant in some sense. The grammar likes to conserve the
shape of thematic elements relative to one another. It is for this reason that ad-
verbs are invisible: they do not assign or receive a thematic role. From the way
shape conservation is dened, we can conclude what kind of rule it should be. As
the constraint explicitly refers to thematic elements, it cannot hold at PF, which
is not concerned with the semantic content of the elements it has to align. This is
why shape conservation should be taken as a concept clearly distinct from order
preservation as used in Fox and Pesetsky. It is not clear either that LF should care
about shape conservation. DPs and verbs that move leave traces and the presence
of these will be enough to ensure the appropriate interpretation. That is, it should
not matter at LF if the syntactic relation between a DP and a verb is inverted by
OS. Neither of the interfaces, then, has any principled problems with shape distor-
tion, which makes it unlikely that shape conservation should hold at any of these
two levels.
The relevant principle must therefore be syntactic. The main question is why
shape conservation should hold in syntax if neither of the interfaces it feeds truly
requires it. The answer lies in the fact that syntax is not an interface itself but a
module of grammar that mediates between levels of grammatical representation.
In essence, then, shape conservation is not a rule that is benecial to the syntax
itself but a mapping rule, as argued for in Williams (2003).
2
Let us focus in on the
interfaces and establish how to formalize shape conservation.
Syntactic representations must be mapped into a phonological and into a se-
mantic representation. It is generally understood that elements relevant at PF are
not necessarily elements that play a role at LF and vice versa. Even more to the
point, if PF only deals with order and LF only with hierarchy, there is nothing
i. The shape conservation rule agued for applies at the point where the syntactic derivation
has been created and is mapped onto a phonological and semantic representation. In terms
of the T-model (Chomsky & Lasnik 1977), shape conservation would count as an S-structure
constraint. This is at odds with the general tendency to state constraints at the interfaces as
much as possible. It may be that shape conservation as a general property of grammars is more
naturally couched in a less syntactico-centric model (cf. Jackendoff 2002) in which levels of
representation syntactic, phonological and semantic are more directly linked to one another.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.10 (642-693)
oo Olaf Koeneman
to conserve, it seems. For shape conservation to exist, we will have to allow for
some minimal similarity between the interfaces. Let us therefore assume, perhaps
contrary to some popular beliefs, that order is already established in the syntax
and that the job of the interfaces is to interpret these structures (cf. Bobaljik 2002;
Haider 2004). Just as syntax already determines hierarchical relations, needed by
LF, it already gives instructions for ordering. This means that a syntactic object
that is minimally complex consists of a left and a right branch. Structure can be
characterized as a set of >-relations that the interfaces will have to interpret.
Let us assume that in the syntax, > means (i) that was merged with or is
contained in the category merged with , and (ii) that was merged with or
is contained in the category merged with . For a simple structure in (16), the
syntactic >-relations are: > Z, > , > and > .
(16)
Y
Z a
b g
Both interfaces will subsequently interpret these syntactically encoded relations.
Suppose that in (16) , and are thematic categories (receiving or assigning
a -role). What the interfaces now have in common is that both LF and PF will
establish > and > , although the consequences are different. At PF, it
entails that is spelled out to the left of , etc. LF-interpretation of structural rela-
tions is a bit more complicated and also depends on the content of the nodes and
the nature of the relationship, which in turn depends largely on your theoretical
assumptions. Let us make a fewexplicit. Assuming that c-command is relevant for
determining scope, LF will conclude from (16), for instance, that scopes over
. With respect to thematic categories, these scopal relations will be important in
a theory that assumes a thematic hierarchy to be relevant for the assignment of
-roles (cf. Grimshaw 1990; Jackendoff 1972; Bayer & Kornlt 1994). Moreover,
since Williams (1989) it has become standard to assume that predicates can only
be related to an element that c-commands it. I will furthermore assume that -
role assignment is phrase-bound and that a predicate in turn must m-command
the argument. Hence, > can be interpreted as a thematic relation, but only
if Z is not a maximal category categorically distinct from . See Neeleman and
Weerman (1999) for a more recent motivation and more radical exploitation of
thematic mapping in these terms.
Although LF-interpretationis thus less straightforward than PF-interpretation,
there is sufcient reason to conclude that for (16) both interfaces have the inter-
pretations > and > . Where LF and PF principally differ is in their
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.11 (693-742)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication o:
interpretation of movement chains. LF interprets the foot of a chain, as it needs to
establish thematic relations. PF, on the other hand, interprets the head of a chain.
One may wonder why PF should do that. Several answers can be given. One fun-
damental answer would be that if both LF and PF interpret the foot of the chain,
the movement would not have any effect on the interfaces, hence it would be un-
motivated. However, as PF cannot know what LF interprets, this reasoning may
not be fully satisfactory (but see Note 2). For the purposes of this article, I will as-
sume that movement leaves a trace and not a copy. Hence, there is nothing that PF
can choose: it has to spell out the head of the chain (cf. Bobaljik 2002 for further
discussion and a different viewon this issue). Example (17) shows a structure with
a movement chain, as well as the interface interpretations of the relation between
and . As can be established, PF and LF interpret the relation differently, and in
a non-uniformway.
(17)
Y
Z
a
b
t
b
PF: > b a
LF: > a b
non-uniform: *
Suppose now that we extend this structure by moving up . As PF interprets
the moved constituents and LF their traces, the interface interpretations are now
uniform again.
(18)
X
Y a
b
t
b
PF: > a b
LF: > a b
non-uniform: OK
Z
t
a
The structure in (17) is ruled out, those in (16) and (18) are ruled in. Hence, shape
conservation is about uniform interface interpretations. For our purposes, we can
formalize it as follows:
(19) Thematic Shape Conservation (TSC):
Within a thematic domain containing and (thematic categories), t
cannot
be (contained in) the right-hand daughter of node N, where N is the minimal
node dominating both and t
.
To state (19) more intuitively: A structure in which and have changed places
within the thematic domain (to be dened) leads to ungrammaticality.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.12 (742-817)
oi Olaf Koeneman
(20) *[ . . . [
-domain
. . . . . . . . . t
. . .]]
The intuition behind (19) is thus that shape conservation is a syntactic mapping
rule that minimizes interpretive differences at PF and LF. This desire for isomor-
phism makes the prediction that syntactic movement may not invert thematic
elements. It is now easy to see how the analysis should work for OS. Examples
(21a) and (21b) are simply concrete examples of (16) and (17). (I will remain ag-
nostic about the landing site of OS. For our purposes, it could be adjunction to VP
or movement to a functional specier.)
(21) a. VP
V DP
b.
DP
i
VP
V t
i
* ?
In (21a), interface interpretation relative to the pair V and DP is uniform and will
be V > DP. In (21b), the minimal node N dominating the two thematic elements
is VP and the right branch of VP contains the trace of one of them. PF interprets
the structure as DP > V, whereas LF interprets it as V > DP. Hence, TSC as stated
in (19) is violated.
It is important to realize that (19) does not require of and that they are
in a thematic relation with respect to one another. They can be, as is the case in
(21), but inversion of two thematic categories without one assigning a -role to
the other is generally just as bad. One example is movement of the direct object
across an indirect object (cf. (3), here repeated as (22)):
(22) *Jag
I
gav
gave
den
i
it
inte
not
Elsa
Elsa
t
i
Here, both and are -role assignees and (19) correctly predicts that Elsa and
den cannot be inverted. A second example is an ECM construction.
(23) *Jag
I
har
have
henne
i
her
inte
not
hrt t
i
heard
hlla
give
fredrag
talk
Take the thematic domain to roughly be the area in which thematic relations are
established (I will dene it more clearly in Section 6.) Then we have two thematic
domains here, one directly embedded in the other. Apparently, the fact that one
thematic domain is an argument within the embedding domain has as a con-
sequence that we have what counts as one complex thematic structure here and
thematic categories of the embedded domain are by necessity part of it. Although
the matrix verb does not assign a -role to the embedded subject, inverting their
relation is still ungrammatical. Hence, shape conservation does not so much look
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.13 (817-884)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication o
at individual thematic dependencies but rather requires that the overall thematic
structure receives a uniform interpretation at the interfaces.
One property of (19) is already noteworthy. Shape conservation refers to the-
matic elements. Adverbs are not included in this category. Hence, OS across an
adverb is straightforwardly allowed. Remember that both Holmberg and Bobaljik
need an extra stipulation added to their analyses of OS to the effect that adverbs
are PF-invisible. Of course, the constraint in (19) does not in itself explain why
adverbs do not enter the calculus: An adverb entertains a semantic relationship
with other elements in the clause as well. Although that relation will be modica-
tional rather than thematic, it is not clear at this point why isomorphism should
not pertain to such a relationship. What is essential is that the constituent entering
into a semantic relation with the adverb is not likely to be a thematic category,
such as an object. After all, an adverb predicates of an event (Davidson 1966).
Hence, we at most expect an effect of shape conservation between an adverb and
for instance a VP, not between an adverb and an object. Therefore, the fact that an
object can cross an adverb but not a verb is expected. Although the consequences
of shape conservation for elements other than thematic ones obviously needs to
be investigated in more detail, I believe this view holds promise.
We have now seen how shape conservation accounts for the observation that
verb movement feeds OS. In Sections 4 and 5, I will turn to particle constructions
and passivization and explain howshape conservationdeals with the relevant facts.
|. Particle constructions
The leading assumption here will be that the particles under discussion are el-
ements with -role assigning qualities. Before entering into the analysis of the
facts related to particle constructions, we must make explicit some workable as-
sumptions about the analysis of their structure and of what allows the optionality
of placing the particle before or after the DP-object. As the literature on particle
constructions is simply overwhelming, an extensive discussion of well-formulated
proposals in this area well exceeds the purposes of this paper and one has to be a
bit pragmatic. I will therefore opt for an approach to particle constructions that
seems viable to me and will at the same time allow a straightforward account of
the central facts.
Leaving a lot of details aside, we can postulate the complex predicate analysis
and some version of the small clause analysis as two viable and distinct options.
These are, perhaps simplied, givenin (24a) and (24b) respectively (cf. Deh, Jack-
endoff, McIntyre, & Urban 2002; and Haiden 2006 for a more detailed overview).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.14 (884-934)
o| Olaf Koeneman
(24) a. VP
V DP
V Part(P)
b. VP
V SC
DP Part(P)
Assuming that either (24a) or (24b) is right, the alternation between part-DP and
DP-part orders must be a consequence of some movement (with or without some
exibility of argument placement). If we take the viewthat movement is invariably
to the left, a complex predicate analysis could analyze the DP-Part order as a result
of base-generating DP as a specier rather than as a complement. Verb move-
ment to a Larsonian shell or to v, then gives the surface order V-DP-Part order.
Adopting a small clause analysis, we can derive the Part-DP order by assuming
that the particle incorporates into the verb or into some higher functional head
c-commanding PartP. Alternatively, one could assume that DP starts out more
embedded within the PartP, for instance as the complement of the particle head,
and optionally moves up. In that case, DP-Part(P) is actually a derived order. Un-
der both approaches, movement is a necessary ingredient. Further theorizing will
then have to reveal why this optionality, which goes without a truth-conditional
difference in meaning (cf. Svenonius 1996), exists or why the optionality is only
apparent (cf. Neeleman 1994 and Svenonius 1996 for some completely different
accounts and for further references).
Given the existence of two competing theories, there are two possibilities. The
rst is that one of the theories is right and the other one wrong. On the basis of the
extensive literature, however, it is extremely hard to make a choice. Both theories
provide evidence and offer solutions to deal with the counterevidence. As Haiden
(2006: 370372) recently concludes: The term verb particle construction cov-
ers too many distinct elements and congurations to allow for a single, consistent
analysis. [. . . ] The strategy which has been followed, explicitly in some and im-
plicitly in most accounts, is to single out consistently behaving subclasses of data.
As there are no clear-cut arguments either way, there is legitimacy in adopting the
second possibility, namely that both are correct to some extent. We conclude that
(24a) is the most natural analysis for a particle-object order and (25b) the most
natural analysis for an object-particle order. In other words, the choice between
base-generating (24a) or (24b) is precisely what constitutes the alternation be-
tween Part-DP and DP-Part within a language. The evidence for this assumption
is then the sum of the evidence brought forward in the literature for either ap-
proach. No movement has to be considered. The bottom line is that the grammar
must create structures in which the particle is able to assign thematic information
to the object. This can be achieved in two ways. The rst is through complex pred-
icate formation, in which two predicates (the verb and the particle) are combined
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.15 (934-1011)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication o,
within the morphological component and the particle adds thematic informa-
tion to the verb. Alternatively, the particle can be projected into a full predicate
separately from the verb and assign its thematic information to the DP-object by
predication. This is then similar to the way in which a VP predicates over a subject
(cf. Williams 1980).
(25) a. VP
DP VP
b. PartP
DP PartP
In both structures, the subject is predicate-external, the argument c-commands
the predicate and the predicate m-commands the argument. In the choice between
(24a) and (24b), the rst option leads to morphological complexity, the second to
syntactic complexity. The fact that complexity is unavoidable but can be carried by
two different components is then what constitutes the choice leading to the part-
DP/DP-part alternation. Note that it is not obvious that an extra cost is involved in
allowing both (24a) and (24b) as two base-generated structures, as it obviates the
need to postulate movement (and a concomitant trigger). In Section 5, I will be a
bit more explicit about my assumptions regarding the morphological component.
With this in mind, let us nowturn to the particle facts. There are two facts that
need to be explained. First of all, we saw that having the DP-Part order, which we
now dene as the possibility of base-generating (24b), feeds OS. If a language only
allows the order Part-DP, which is the case in Swedish, OS is blocked. The second
fact to be explained is that an obligatory Part-DP order also blocks passivization
of the object. If a language allows the order DP-Part, as in Danish, Icelandic and
Norwegian, object-to-subject raising is unproblematic. These facts follow, as both
OS and passivization cause the object to cross the particle in Swedish only. There-
fore, interface interpretation will not be uniform. According to the denition in
(19), the structure of a Swedish particle construction will after movement of the
object contain a node N, the minimal node dominating both the object trace and
the particle, of which the trace is on a right branch. This node is circled in (26a).
In Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic, on the other hand, the object trace is a left
branch of the minimal node dominating the particle and the object trace. Hence,
only (26a) is ruled out by the denition of TSC, which is the desired result.
(26) a.
VP
V t
DP
V Part(P)
*
b. VP
V Part P
t
DP
Part(P)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.16 (1011-1070)
oo Olaf Koeneman
Whether DP undergoes OS or passivization, they both contain the violating sub-
structure in (26a) and are therefore ruled out for the same reason. Obviously, a
question that arises is why regular passivization in a non-particle construction
does not lead to ungrammaticality. After all, subject-to-object raising crosses the
verb. I will postpone answering this question until the next section.
It is important for the analysis that particles are indeed thematic elements,
assigning a -role to a DP. This idea is rather uncontroversial in both the com-
plex predicate and small clause approach and many analyses treat particles on a
par with resultatives. Evidence for their predicative status comes from examples
showing that resultatives and particles can license an additional DP:
(27) a. *I let the dog
b. I let the dog out
(28) a. *I walk my shoes
b. I walk my shoes to pieces
Admittedly, it is not always clear what kind of thematic information the particle
assigns to the object (take to call versus to call up), but there is evidence that even
particles that do not license an additional argument are still in a licensing relation-
ship with the internal argument (cf. Zeller 2001 and McIntyre 2004 for detailed
argumentation). At the same time, there is evidence against the stronger claim
that all particles are -role assigners. Resultatives are probably the clearest exam-
ples of predicates adding thematic information to the structure. This information
is without exception assigned to the object, which therefore must be present. If
particles and resultatives should be treated on a par, we now expect particles to
only occur in the presence of an object. This turns out to be incorrect:
(29) a. You must hurry up (English)
b. dat
that
Jan
Jan
en
en
Piet
Piet
samenwerken
together-work
(Dutch)
that Jan and Piet co-operate
Suppose we conclude from this that the particles in (29) are not argument li-
censers, hence no -role assigners. This turns out to be harmless for the analysis.
The only prediction that we now make is that a particle without -role assigning
capabilities should feed OS as well as passivization. However, since it is the ab-
sence of the object that indicates the lack of these capabilities, there is nothing to
test. Therefore, no wrong prediction is made.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.17 (1070-1127)
,. Predication theory
In the previous section, it was argued that in Swedish passivization of the object in
a particle construction leads to ungrammaticality, as the object is forced to cross
the particle. Therefore, LF and PF interpretations will be non-uniform and shape
conservation is violated. An immediate question that this analysis conjures up is
why regular object-to-subject raising does not lead to ungrammaticality. After all,
these constructions have the following (reduced) structure:
(30) DP [
VP
V t
DP
]
The mutual relation betweenVand object is reversed. Therefore, one would expect
LF to interpret this structure as V>DP and PF as DP>V. Whereas object-to-subject
raising forms a direct problem for analyses capitalizing on order preservation, for
an analysis of shape conservation the problem is only as serious as the necessity to
adopt the syntactic assumptions that create it. I propose that they disappear once
object-to-subject raising is couched in predication theory. This approach will have
several favourable consequences.
Chomsky (1970) has suggested that verbal categories are inherently predica-
tive. This suggestionhas beentaken up in Williams (1980 and further) predication
theory, which holds that VP, consisting of the verb and internal argument(s), al-
ways functions as a predicate, assigning a -role to the subject. It is this property
that has non-trivial consequences for the way LF interprets thematic relations. Re-
call what both interfaces, among other things, have to do: to interpret syntactic
>-relations pertaining to thematic categories. As a subgroup, D-categories have
to be related to V-categories. A simple example is that of a verb and an object. As
the object is contained within the VP, the verb and the DP-object are the categories
entering the TSC calculus. A more complicated example is one involving a subject.
If a subject occupies a VP-external position, as in predication theory, then more
nodes potentially count as thematic categories. These are boxed in (31). Which are
relevant for the interfaces?
(31)
VP DP
V
The proposal here is that for the purposes of shape conservation, category only
has to be related to category once. If is structurally complex (i.e. consists of
more categories), the node relevant for PF will ultimately be the terminal, as PF
basically spells out terminals. For LF, however, the relevant node is the one that is
thematically related to , if there is one. This entails that for the structure in (32),
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.18 (1127-1182)
o8 Olaf Koeneman
PF interprets DP>V and LF interprets DP>VP. As there is no conict in these
interpretations, shape conservation is respected.
(32)
DP VP
V
VP PF: DP>V
LF: DP>VP
If different nodes of a particular category are relevant for each interface (here, V
and VP), some freedom arises. If due to thematicity LF selects VP as the node to
which the VP-external DP must be related and the relation between this DP and
V is consequently ignored, we predict that DP and V can be inverted within the
thematic domain. Two possibilities arise. First of all, a DP is allowed to cross V if
it lands in a position that is thematically related to VP. This will be our analysis of
passivization. Second, the reverse is also possible. If in a predication relation DP is
thematically related to VP rather than V, then V is allowed to cross DP. This will be
our analysis of short verb movement in double object constructions. Let us start
with passivization.
According to the standard analysis of object-to-subject raising, an object re-
ceives its -role from the verb and then moves to the subject position for myste-
rious reasons, usually captured under the label epp. There is, however, a viable
alternative, holding that there is something that John walks, an intransitive con-
struction, and John falls, an unaccusative construction, have in common, namely
that both contain a subject that is predicated over andthat predication is essentially
an external relation between maximal projections (Williams 1980 and subsequent
work; Neeleman & Weerman 1999 and others). This is schematised in (33):
(33) [ DP . . . [
VP
V ]
DP
The main intuition expressed here is that the subject entertains a thematic rela-
tion with VP, in unaccustive constructions as well as in transitive and unergative
constructions.
Now, the evidence for the different origins of the -roles assigned to John in
the walk- and fall-case is robust. That is, the idea that John starts out as an object
of fall but not of walk is well-motivated, certainly if one takes into consideration
cross-linguistic ndings such as ne-cliticization in Italian (cf. Burzio 1986) and
auxiliary selection in a language like Dutch (where unaccusatives have a complex
past tense with a formof zijn to be and transitives and unergatives with a form of
hebben to have). How can these ndings be united with the idea that nevertheless
it is the VP headed by fall which entertains a thematic relation with John in subject
position? This can be achieved once it is recognized that -roles are epiphenom-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.19 (1182-1246)
enal. Ultimately, thematic relations will have to be interpreted at LF, so that they
have to be expressed in terms that LF recognizes. One way of doing this is to think
of a thematic relation as a logical formula consisting of a lambda operator and a
variable. Saturation of an internal -role can then be seen as the application of the
formula in (34) to an argument:
(34) x [V (x) ]
If predication is an external relation, it must be the case that at the level of VP
a lambda operator is introduced in the mapping to semantic interpretation, as
proposed by Partee (1973) and Williams (1977). This is schematized in (35).
(35) x[
VP
. . .(x). . .]
So an external -role, in traditional terms, differs from an internal -role with
respect to which node introduces the lambda-operator: The lexical entry of the
verb provides the operator of an internal role (cf. (34)), but VP introduces the
operator for an external role (cf. (35)). For a transitive predicate, the question now
is as follows. If VP introduces a lambda operator, what introduces the variable x
in (35)? Note that not every verb assigns an external -role in traditional terms, so
that the lexical entry of a verb that does must be distinct anyway from the entry
of a verb that does not. We can thus hypothesize that lexically such an external
-role is represented as a variable. A lexical verb selecting an agent and a theme
then looks as in (36a). An unergative verb only electing an agent would have the
entry in (36b):
(36) a. y [V (xy) ]
b. [V (x) ]
At the level of VP, a lambda operator is introduced that binds the variable x in both
representations. This enables the VP to predicate over a VP-external subject.
Note that the lambda-calculus now distinguishes between an unaccusative
(34), unergative (36b) and transitive predicate (36a). Note also that in this anal-
ysis we can formulate a contentful version of the epp. If VP inherently acts as a
predicate, there will always be a lambda operator introduced at the level of VP that
enables the VP to predicate over a subject. The rule that introduces the lambda
operator and the rule stating that every clause should have a subject can now be
collapsed:
3
. An anonymous reviewer wonders how an unergative and unaccusative VP can be distin-
guished in such a way that a subject counts as VP-external in the unergative case, thereby
pointing out a problem of syntactic theory in general. After all, a verb is merged with a DP
in both cases and it is unclear how in a bare phrase structure grammar a complement can be
distinguished from a specier. We could either assume that unergatives have an implicit ob-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.20 (1246-1304)
o Olaf Koeneman
(37) Extended Projection Principle:
Map VP onto x[|VP|]
There is, however, one remaining question, which pertains to an unaccusative
(or passive) predicate. Applying the logic entertained so far, we take the verbs in
clauses like John falls or The clothes are washed to be represented as in (34). Merg-
ing these verbs with an object, John and the clothes, respectively, will entail thematic
saturation. At the same time, merger of these verbs and their objects, creates a VP
and this triggers (38), the introduction of an lambda-operator. We now encounter
a problem: there is no variable left for the lambda operator to bind and VP can-
not act as a predicate, as required. This is exactly where object-to-subject raising
becomes important. After DP-movement, the structure of VP looks as in (38):
(38) [
VP
V t
DP
]
Kitagawa (1989) and Chierchia (1995) propose that traces of DP-movement are
interpreted as variables, so that the semantic representation corresponding to the
syntactic representation in (38) looks as in (39).
(39) a. y [V (y)] x
(39) states that VP-internal saturation is achieved by applying the lambda-variable
combination to a variable. It will be clear that this does not provide the correct in-
terpretation of John falls, or The clothes are washed, yet. The representation in (39)
reduces to (40a) after lambda conversion. At the level of VP, a lambda operator is
introduced and the representation obtained looks as in (40b).
(40) a. V(x)
b. x[
VP
. . .(x). . .]
As can now be observed, the semantic representation of a VP with an unassigned
external -role (cf. (35)) and that of a VP containing a DP-trace (cf. (40b)) are
identical. This means that a VP containing a DP-trace can act as a predicate and
select a VP-external subject. It is the moved DP that will full this function. As
VP must be able to enter into a thematic relation with the moved DP, the two
nodes must be local to one another. I will follow standard assumptions within
predication theory and assume that the moved DP must be either adjoined to the
ject (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993), so that an unergative subject is merged with a projection of V,
or that this subject is external as it occupies the specier position of a functional head select-
ing VP, for instance v. In the latter case, we could even assume that it is v which introduces
the lambda-operator, thereby bringing the proposal closer to current thinking. See Neeleman
and Van de Koot (in preparation) for a solution in terms of -theory. I will not explore these
possibilities further.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.21 (1304-1364)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication :
VP or occupy the specier of the rst functional projection dominating VP (cf.
Williams 1994 and Koeneman & Neeleman 2001 for discussion).
4
To state this analysis of object-to-subject raising in more intuitive terms: what
unergative, transitive and unaccusative predicates have in common is that VP con-
tains an information gap. This gap is required for the VP to act as a predicate.
With unergatives and transitives this gap coincides with the variable present in
the lexical entry of the verb, whereas with unaccusatives, this gap has to be syn-
tactically created through object-to-subject raising.
5
The conceptual advantage is
that we can then generalize over base-generated and derived subjects and state an
important rule, the revised epp, to capture this in a contentful way. In addition,
it provides a handle on some empirical data. Note for instance that an active and
passive predicate can be easily conjoined.
(41) John [
VP
walked into the managers ofce] and [
VP
was red t]
The structure in (41) blatantly violates the Coordinate Structure Constraint, which
disallows extraction from one of the conjuncts. If, however, this constraint es-
sentially requires that the conjoined phrases have similar selectional demands, its
grammaticality is expected: Both VPs in (41) need to predicate over the same DP.
More empirical advantages become available after some ne-tuning of the theory
(cf. Neeleman & Weerman 1999; Neeleman & Van de Koot 2002/in preparation),
|. In clauses with modal or aspectual verbs, the subject will overtly appear in a position that is
not m-commanded by the main VP-predicate. I will assume that modal and aspectual verbs do
not assigna -role to a VP-predicate but modify it. That is, may read has the same thematic prop-
erties as reads or probably reads (cf. Bobaljik 1995). Modifying verbs simply extend the predicate
in the same way as adverbs do. The subject is then either merged after the last modifying verb or
is generated lower and allowed to cross it because it is not a thematic category.
,. Note that it is hard to translate this analysis in terms of traditional -roles and one could eas-
ily be under the impression that the same role is assigned twice. Although such a translationmay
perhaps be harmless (after all, one -role would assigned twice but to the same DP, so that no
obvious violation of the -criterion ensues), it is more correct to think of the lambda-calculus
as doing the following: VP-internal saturation by a variable has as a consequence that the the-
matic information originating low in the structure is promoted to the level of VP. Employing
the lambda operator is only one way of ensuring that VP assigns the internal -role to an exter-
nal argument. See Neeleman and Weerman (1999) for an approach using empty operators and
Williams (1994), where the notion of vertical binding is used. The requirement that VP should
enter into a predication relation with a thematic subject ultimately holds at LF, not in the syntax.
Hence, there must be some LF computation involved in structures where an expletive occupies
the subject position. See Williams (1994) and Koeneman and Neeleman (2001) for two possible
approaches.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.22 (1364-1421)
i Olaf Koeneman
but this will get us too far removed from the issues at hand.
6
Let us therefore turn
to the relevance of this for shape conservation.
Object-to-subject raising in terms of predication theory explains why this op-
eration does not violate shape conservation. Unlike OS, passivization is movement
of a DP to a position interpreted by LF as thematic. Thematic Shape Conservation
can be ensured, as DP and VP are the relevant nodes for LF, just like in the active
counterpart. The trace of DP can consequently be ignored, at least for the purposes
of TSC, and there is no crossing registered. Interface interpretation is uniform as
DP > VP (LF) and DP > V (PF) do not clash.
Obviously, this solution for passivization is only as strong as the (predication)
theory it uses, but this criticism is in turn only as strong as the more standard
theory that this criticismwould adopt. I do not consider an explanation for object-
to-subject movement in terms of a strong epp-feature very insightful, for instance,
and believe it is actually in the spirit of minimalist goals to try and dene triggers
in terms that are transparently relevant for one of the interfaces (here LF). In the
absence of consensus about the nature of epp-effects, therefore, such criticism is
bearable. Moreover, I believe that the assumptions of predication theory can be
naturally extended, with favourable consequences.
First of all, predication theory provides us with an analysis of short verb move-
ment in double object constructions, an operation generally ignored in the order
preservation literature. Note that in a VP-shell analysis of these constructions, the
verb crosses the indirect object, as in (42b), and thereby seemingly violates shape
conservation. The solution is to extend predication theory to these constructions
and take the relation between IO and its sister-VP to be a predication relation (cf.
(42a)). As can be seen in (42b), the consequence is that the interfaces again pick
different verbal categories to relate to the indirect object and no conict arises.
o. If the epp is about VP being inherently predicative rather than about there being a structural
subject, we expect cases in which a verbal category functions as a predicate without having a
structural subject. Higginbotham (1985) argues that gerunds and participles are a case in point.
The prenominal V-projections in (i) enter into a thematic relationship with NP, but they lack a
structural subject.
(i) a. A [
VP
quietly whistling] postman
b. A [
VP
carefully composed] letter
In addition, (i) shows that both an active and passive VP are capable of doing this.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.23 (1421-1481)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication
(42) a.
IO VP
V DO
VP
b.
V VP
IO VP
V
t
v
DO
PF: V > IO
LF: IO > VP
That IOs behave like subjects (rather than internal arguments) has been observed
by Larson (1988), Bowers (1993) and Basilico (1998). Evidence for this idea comes
from all directions. IOs trigger agreement in for instance South-Asian languages
(Hermon 1985; Verma & Mohanan 1991; Mishra 1991) and obligatory clitic dou-
bling in Bantu, Spanish and (for some speakers of) Greek (cf. Marantz 1993;
Ngonyani 1996; Anagnostopoulou 2003). In Icelandic, IOs but not DOs are ca-
pable of binding anaphors that are bound by subjects only (cf. Maling 1990) and
of disturbing the standard agreement pattern between the verb and a nominative
DP. Brandt (2003) argues at length for the view that many asymmetries between
IOs and DOs (such as idiom formation, binding possibilities and the fact that IOs
act as semantic denites) are best understood if the IO is not licensed by the verb
but external to the constituent consisting of the verb and DO, a view shared by
Pylkknen (2000) and Anagnostopoulou (2003). Whereas these authors argue for
an approach in which IOis licensed by a VP-external functional head (cf. also Note
5), I will for the moment stick to my earlier assumptions and take the observations
above to indicate that IO is predicated over by VP.
A second prediction is made. As the trace of DP can be ignored by TSC if DP
moves to a position that LF interprets as thematic, we expect that passivization
of a direct object across an indirect object should in principle be allowed by the
grammar. This prediction is correct, as this option is realized in at least Swedish
and Norwegian.
(43) a. Medaljen
Medal.the
blev
was
frrad
presented
Johan
Johan
(Swedish)
b. En
A
bok
book
ble
was
gitt
given
Jon
Jon
(Norwegian)
This possibility is, however, not used by for instance Danish and Icelandic. What-
ever the cause for that, shape conservation cannot be responsible for it. Cf. Holm-
berg and Platzack (1995) and Anagnostopoulou (2003), who argues that failure of
this passivization can have different causes cross-linguistically.
A third instance where predication theory does the right job involves a case
where the grammar has found an interesting way of circumventing a violation
of shape conservation in a passivization construction. Recall from the previous
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.24 (1481-1537)
| Olaf Koeneman
section that passivization of an object was ungrammatical in a Swedish particle
construction. As Swedish lacks the possibility of syntactically projecting the par-
ticle into a predicate, complex predicate formation in the morphology is the only
option. In that event, there are two predicative categories that must be related to
the DP, namely V and PartP. Now, we have seen that with respect to the thematic
information on the verb LF interprets the predication relation holding between
DP in subject position and VP. For the second predicative category, PartP, a prob-
lem arises. The reason is that PartP and DP in subject position cannot enter into a
thematic relation directly, because they are not in a local relation.
(44)
DP VP
V t
DP
VP
V Part(P)
The rst maximal projection dominating Part(P) is the lower VP-node and this
category excludes the subject position. Hence, Part(P) does not m-command the
subject position. The only way in which LF can therefore relate PartP and DP
is via DPs trace. Hence, the LF interpretation will have to be PartP>DP, which
conicts with the PF interpretation DP>PartP. Predication theory thus explains
that object-to-subject raising across a verb or indirect object is allowed but that
the same movement across a predicative particle is ruled out. More generally put,
predication theory brings in the possibility of distorting shape but in a very lim-
ited way. Familiar locality conditions on predication explain what goes wrong in a
Swedish particle construction.
There is, however, an alternative way of generating both the verb and the
particle that does not lead to the problem mentioned, namely through lexical
compounding. Swedish can prex the particle to the verb and in that event pas-
sivization is allowed (cf. (45)):
(45) Skrpet
i
the scrap
mste
must
bli
be
utkastat t
i
out-thrown
(Swedish)
The scrap must be thrown out
The crucial difference between a complex predicate and a compound can be char-
acterized as follows. According to Ackema and Neeleman (2004), a complex word
is created in the morphological component but this component has access to
syntactic as well as purely morphological rules (cf. the reference for arguments
against deriving complex words in the syntactic component proper). For complex
verbs, which consist of a verbal and a nonverbal part (a particle or resultative), the
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.25 (1537-1608)
morphological component also has the choice between creating these objects by
syntactic or morphological rules and the results can be distinguished. If in Swedish
the morphology puts together a particle and verb by syntactic rules, the order is
verb-particle, in accordance with the VO-setting of the language. If it is put to-
gether by morphological rules, the order is particle-verb, in accordance with the
Right-hand Head Rule. Hence, we get the minimal pair bryter av break off and
avbryter interrupt. These entities behave differently in the syntax. As bryter av is
put together by syntactic means, it is syntactically transparent. Hence, the particle
is stranded when the verb undergoes verb second:
(46) Jag bryter
i
inte t
i
av kvisten (Swedish)
I break not off the.branch
If the complex verb is put together by morphological rules, the result is an atom
and syntactic rules cannot see the parts it is made of. Hence, the particle is pied-
piped when the verb undergoes verb second:
(47) Jag avbryter
i
inte t
i
samtalet (Swedish)
I offbreak the.conversation
I interrupt the conversation
If a particle-verb order reveals that the complex is put together by morphologi-
cal rules, the complex verb in (45) must be a compound and hence syntactically
opaque. As no syntactic rule can refer to a prexed particle in a compound, this
element cannot be input to TSC either. Hence, the syntax does not register a cross-
ing effect taking place when the object is raised to subject position, which explains
the grammaticality of (45). The thematic information carried by the particle, I
will assume, is percolated to the top node of the compound in the morphological
component and hence available in the syntax.
Svenonius (1996) reports that in other Scandinavian languages the possibil-
ity of generating these [Part.-V] structures varies greatly. It seems to be strongly
preferred in some Norwegian dialects, impossible in Danish and Icelandic and
subject to substantial speaker variation in Faroese. As the possibility of the Part-
DP/DP-Part alternation cuts across the languages that allow [Part.-V] structures,
Svenonius concludes that there is no correlation between having structures like
(45) and the surface position of the particle in active sentences (as either preced-
ing or following the object). It seems to me, however, that we can at least draw
a distinction between Swedish on the one hand and the other Scandinavian lan-
guages on the other in that Swedish is the only language in which both Part.-DP
orders in active and [Part.-V] compounds in passive constructions are obligatory.
We can thus draw the overview in Table 1.
Hence, with the exception of Swedish, both [Part.-V] structures and [Part.-
DP] structures are non-obligatory in Scandinavian, meaning either possible or
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.26 (1608-1653)
o Olaf Koeneman
Table 1. [Part.-V] and [Part.-DP] structures in Scandinavian
Language [Part.-V] in passive [Part.-DP] in active
Swedish obligatory obligatory
Danish non-obligatory non-obligatory
Norwegian non-obligatory non-obligatory
Faroese non-obligatory non-obligatory
Icelandic non-obligatory non-obligatory
impossible. This pattern is not unexpected, as Swedish is the only language in
which a [Part.-V] compound has a clear purpose: the obligatory [Part.-DP] order
in the active sentence necessitates compounding for the passive to be possible.
To conclude this section, we have seen three cases where shape conservation
seems to be violated: (i) DP movement across the verb in subject-to-object raising,
(ii) short verb movement across an indirect object in a VP-shell structure and (iii)
passivization of a direct object over an indirect object. All three potential viola-
tions are resolved once predication theory is brought into the picture. At the same
time, predication theory explains why OS and passivization across a particle are
ruled out.
o. Shape distortion
If shape conservation were an inviolable principle of UG, we would not know it
existed. Holmbergs generalization is noteworthy in the face of data that strongly
suggest that initial orders can be destroyed, at least in principle. Hence, shape con-
servation holds when everything else is equal and the job is to nd out when this
is not the case.
There are two types of shape distortion that I would like to distinguish, namely
shape distortion within and outside of the thematic domain. In the rst case,
thematic category crosses thematic category and lands within the thematic do-
main (cf. (46a)). This is what is ruled out by our constraint, the TSC. Alternatively,
thematic category can cross but land in a position outside of the thematic do-
main (cf. (46b)). In that event, there is no visible inversion of thematic categories
within the thematic domain and TSC does not apply.
(46) a. *[ . . . [
-domain
. . . . . . . . . t . . .]]
b. [ . . . . . . [
-domain
. . . . . . t . . .]]
The thematic domain is most naturally dened as the area in which all thematic
relations are established. We can give a more precise denition. Recall that in pred-
ication theory VP assigns a -role to a VP-external subject, which is either adjoined
to VP or occupies the specier position of the rst projection dominating VP (IP
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.27 (1653-1717)
or TP). The thematic domain therefore comprises everything dominated by the
node that immediately dominates the subject position. Hence, crossing the subject
entails leaving the thematic domain.
Conceptually, it makes perfect sense to restrict shape conservation of thematic
categories to that domain in which thematic relations are established. After all, it is
not obvious why it would hold outside this domain. Moreover, we independently
know that the left periphery of the clause has a highlighting function. The CP-
domain is used for topics and focus constituents, elements that are set apart from
the rest of the clause. For a domain to have this function, it must be allowed to dis-
obey shape conservation, as its main function is to destroy it. These conceptual
arguments for restricting TSC to the thematic domain tie in with the empiri-
cal observation that movements to CP can be shape distorting without giving an
ungrammatical result. An example is given in (47).
(47) Vad
i
/Boken
i
what/the.book
kpte
bought
Ulf
Ulf
inte
not
t
i
(Swedish)
Here, both the verb and the object are thematic categories that have moved across
the subject to the C-projection. As their landing sites lie outside of the thematic
domain, TSC does not apply. Legitimate shape distortion does not necessarily in-
volve movements to the C-projection. As long as the thematic category crosses
the subject, the result should be grammatical. This is supported by the following
data. Example (48a) shows an object pronoun that has crossed the subject, a phe-
nomenon known as long object shift. Example (48b) from Icelandic involves a
DP-object that has moved to a position between the subject and the fronted verb.
(48) a.
%
Drfr
therefore
gav
gave
mej
me
Marit
Marit
inte
not
ngon
any
present
present
(Swedish)
b. a
there
stinger
put
smjorinu
the butter
einhver
someone
I
in
vasann
the pocket
(Icelandic)
What also follows is that moving categories to CP that in their base position would
give rise to a violation of shape distortion, such as a particle, gives a grammatical
result (cf. (4) and (49)):
(49) UT
j
Out
kastade
threw
dom
they
mej
i
me
inte
not
t
j
t
i
(Swedish)
Examples (47) to (49) are instantiations of (46b) and therefore instances of shape
distortion that do not affect our analysis. More problematic would be (apparent)
cases of shape distortion within the thematic domain. These certainly seem to ex-
ist. In Section 6.1, I will look at examples of a direct object that lands between a
subject and an indirect object and ask why the grammar does not register these as
ungrammatical. Section 6.2 looks at negative constituents in Icelandic that seem
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.28 (1717-1790)
8 Olaf Koeneman
to be obliged to violate Holmbergs generalization, a phenomenon known as the
inverse Holmberg effect. Each section will offer a suggestion of how to tackle the
problem in a way compatible with the general approach.
o.: DO-IO reorderings
Recall that movement of a direct object across an indirect object is ruled out
by TSC, as one thematic category crosses another. This correctly rules out (22),
repeated here as (50):
(50) *Jag
I
gav
gave
den
i
it
inte
not
Elsa
Elsa
t
i
(Swedish)
It turns out, however, that at least for a signicant number of Swedish speakers
(50) becomes grammatical if the indirect object DP (here, Elsa) is replaced by a
pronoun (cf. Hellan & Platzack 1999 for a good discussion of the data). In that
case, OS is legitimate (cf. (51a)). The direct object must, however, move across
negation. VP-internal crossing of the indirect object pronoun is out (cf. (51b)).
If the indirect pronoun independently undergoes OS across negation, the direct
object can precede it without any problem (51c).
(51) a.
%
Han
he
gav
gave
den
it
inte
not
henne
her
(Swedish)
b. *Jag
I
gav
gave
inte
not
den
it
honom
him
c. Jag
I
gav
gave
den
it
honom
him
inte
not
Lets start with (51c). Recall that what TSC basically rules out is (52):
(52) *[
-domain
[ t
]]
This leaves one important option open: can legitimately cross if does not
leave a trace. This happens when moves as part of a larger, and crucially non-
thematic, category :
(53)
Formally, (53) obeys TSC: t
is on a right branch but does not violate TSC as long

as is not a thematic category. PF will order the terminals as >. LF, however,
cannot interpret the relation of and if we assume that is contained in and
hence does not scope over (taking c-command to be the syntactic conguration
determining scope). This means that TSC is unable to detect non-uniformity. Even
if we alternatively were to assume that everything contained in scopes over
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.29 (1790-1848)
(e.g. by broadening the syntactic conguration determining scope), TSC is not
endangered. In that event, LF will interpret the relation as >, which is similar
to the one obtained by PF. Obviously, establishing > can and will eventually
be achieved by LF but only after reconstruction, i.e. after late LF computation.
This computation, however, is something that TSC cannot know. TSC applies at
the point in the derivation where the structure is sent to the interfaces and simply
evaluates the structure at that point. Object-to-subject raising, which is triggered
in overt syntax, can therefore be input to TSC, but reconstruction cannot.
What is the relevance of this? Let us start with (51c). Assume that pronouns
are weak elements that for prosodic reasons like to leave their canonical base po-
sition. Richards (2004) argues that the main characteristic of OS is that it involves
phonologically decient (i.e. defocused) elements. The most natural trigger for
OS, therefore, is one that refers to PF rather than to LF. Let us therefore assume
that pronouns must be move out of their base position as it is the position to which
neutral stress is assigned. Then, after short verb movement and merger of an ad-
verb/negation, there are two categories that can be moved to obtain this result,
namely the direct object itself or VP containing the direct object as its only overt
category. These two categories are circled in (54):
(54)
ADV VP
V VP
VP
IO VP
DO t
v
Both of these movements, however, violate TSC. DO cannot cross IO, as it would
entail that one thematic category crosses another. IO receives a -role from VP, so
that IO is related to VP. V is therefore allowed to cross IO, but VP is not. Hence,
there is no way to move DO from its base position. However, we can derive (51c)
by rst moving the IO pronoun out of the VP (cf. (55a)). This creates a larger
VP-remnant, circled in (55b). This node differs from the circled VP in (54) in not
being a thematic category. It does not, for instance, assign a -role to its sister,
the moved V.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.30 (1848-1890)
8o Olaf Koeneman
(55) a.
ADV VP
V VP
VP
IO VP
DO t
v
b.
IO VP
ADV VP
VP
V VP
VP t
IO
t
v
DO
Movement of this remnant VP crossing the IOthen gives the surface order DO-IO-
ADV-V.
7
Subsequently, a subject will be merged and the nite verb will undergo
verb second. The end result is a structure in which DO has legitimately moved
. An anonymous reviewer wonders what happens with selected adverbs in behave badly-type
of constructions. Here, Scandinavian uniformly puts the adverb after the object, it seems.
(i) Han
he
har
has
<*drlig>
badly
oppf
behaved
rt
re.
seg
badly
<drlig> (Norwegian)
(ii) De
They
uppfrde
behaved
<*illa>
badly
sej
re.
<illa>
badly
(Swedish)
Although in Swedish the syntax of adverbs is apparently different form the syntax of particles,
it is not clear what to conclude from this. Either adverbs in Swedish, in contrast to particles,
can head a sort of small clause or Scandinavian simply allows adverbs to right-adjoin to VP.
Under either hypothesis, it is hard to test if selected adverbs are input to TSC, as no obvious
crossing will occur. If the remnant movement approach suggested in this section is on the right
track, there is a reason to prefer the second option. In double object constructions that include
a clause-nal adverb/PP (for example: They sent her the owers to her ofce), a right-adjoined
adverb/PP can have a remnant VP as a sister. This constituent can then undergo object shift
stranding the adverb/PP. A ban on right-adjunction, therefore, will make it more complicated
to uphold the present analysis or would at least invoke more movement operations.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.31 (1890-1938)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication 8:
across IO. The thematic domain does not contain structure that violates TSC, as
DO does not leave a trace. Only the remnant VP leaves a trace but it is a trace of a
non-thematic category, hence irrelevant for TSC.
This brings us to (51a). The question is why the direct object can undergo
object shift across a VP-internal IO-pronoun but not across a VP-internal IO-DP.
I believe the crucial difference is that the pronoun is a head and a DP is not. In
structure (55), there is only one position below the adverb accessible as a landing
site for a head but not for a maximal projection, and that is V. Suppose that the
IO-pronoun adjoins to the verb.
(56)
IO
VP ADV
VP
VP
V
VP
DO t
V
V t
IO
As a result, the sister of [V-IO] is now a remnant VP that only contains the direct
object. This VP, which is non-thematic, can again be moved so as to get the direct
object out of its canonical position. Obviously, the verb must be able to undergo
verb second later, thereby stranding the IO-pronoun (cf. (57)).
(57)
VP VP
VP ADV
VP
t
VP
IO V
DO
V
Hence, we must conclude that for these Swedish speakers these pronouns are clitics
that can survive adjoined to a phonologically unlledhead (cf. Roberts 1991; Josef-
sson 1992). This actually accounts for a more general fact of Swedish. In contrast
to Norwegian, a weak object pronoun can remain within the VP for some speakers
even if it can legitimately undergo OS. In Norwegian, this shift is obligatory (cf.
Hellan & Platzack 1999).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.32 (1938-2003)
8i Olaf Koeneman
(58) a.
%
S V ADV O
pronoun
(Swedish)
b. *S V ADV O
pronoun
(Norwegian)
The Swedish fact is puzzling if pronouns must in general leave their base position.
We can now analyze it as just another instance of an adjoined pronoun that is
subsequently stranded by the verb.
(59)
VP
V t
DO
DO V
Hence, it does leave its base position after all. Nothing of course forbids pied-
piping. The verb and the adjoined direct object are allowed to cross the indirect
object, as LF will relate IO to its sister, VP, rather than to V. If the verb moves to C,
piedpiping the object pronoun, both will eventually precede the subject.
(60)
VP
IO VP
V t
DO
V DO
Example (48a) showed that such Long Object Shift was indeed possible in Swedish
(cf. Josefsson 1992 for conditions).
To sum up, we have suggested to solve the problem of IO-DO reordering
within the thematic domain by making use of a mechanism which TSC allows;
movement of larger constituents containing nothing but the direct object. As long
as the remnant category is non-thematic, the trace it leaves is irrelevant for the
TSC calculus.
o.i The inverse Holmberg effect
A strange phenomenon in Icelandic poses a serious problem for many analyses of
Holmbergs generalization, including the one presented here. Negative (and op-
tionally quantied) phrases appear in positions unavailable to regular DPs and
vice versa. (cf. Rgnvaldsson 1987; Svenonius 2000; F&P 2005). More precisely, it
seems that they undergo movement in contexts where the unmoved verb normally
blocks OS (cf. (61a)) and that they cannot move when the verb has undergone verb
second (cf. (61b)), in contrast to regular OS:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.33 (2003-2063)
(61) a. Jn
Jon
hefur
has
ekkert
nothing
sagt
said
Sveini
Sveini
b. *Jn
Jon
sagi
said
ekkert
nothing
Sveini
Sveini
For Holmbergs and Bobaljiks approaches, the question is why these negative
phrases do not disturb the adjacency that blocks OS with an unmoved verb in
(61a) and why shift is impossible in (61b), where adjacency should not be dis-
turbed. For the shape conservation approach, the question is why shape distortion
here gives a grammatical outcome and shape conservation an ungrammatical one.
For Fox and Pesetsky, (61a) follows under the stipulation that negative phrases,
unlike regular DPs, can target the left edge of VP before moving to their landing
site. Hence, spell-out of VP gives object>verb, and this statement is repeated at the
level of CP. Example (61b) is then correctly ruled out as follows. If spell-out of VP
provides the ordering statement object>verb and the verb subsequently undergoes
verb second, spell-out of CP gives V>object and a paradox ensues. Hence, move-
ment of a negative phrase and V-to-C movement cannot co-occur. As it turns out,
the F&P analysis cannot be maintained. The ungrammaticality of (61b) seems to
be caused by the presence of two internal arguments rather than by verb move-
ment to C. If the Negative Phrase is the only internal argument, V-to-C movement
is unproblematic. Consider the following examples from Svenonius (2000):
(62) a. Vi
we
buum
invited
engum
no
lgreglujnum
police.ofcers
b. *Vi
we
getum
can
boi
invite
engum
no
lgreglujnum
police.ofcers
c. Vi
we
getum
can
engum
no
lgreglujnum
police.ofcers
boi
invite
The contrast between (62b) and (62c) shows that the negative phrase must
move. It must therefore have moved string-vacuously in (62a).
8
Nevertheless,
the verb has undergone verb second in (62a), which should not be possible
according to F&P.
In short, the inverse Holmberg effect poses a problemfor all the theories con-
sidered. Although I do not have a worked out account for these data, I will sketch
what seems to me a viable direction to move into. According to Svenonius (2000),
movement of a negative phrase is an instance of quantier raising. An obvious way
to distinguish QR from OS is to argue that QR adds to LF-interpretation, whereas
OS does not. Recall that I assumed earlier, following Richards (2004), that OS takes
8. Movement of negative phrases targets a lower position than object shift does. As a conse-
quence, adverbs are a useless diagnostic.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.34 (2063-2115)
8| Olaf Koeneman
place for prosodic reasons, and hence has no bearing on LF. What LF interprets is
the base position of a chain created by OS, as this base position is associated with
thematic information. QR is like wh-movement in creating an operator-variable
chain. Put differently, wh-movement and QR create interpretable landing sites.
LF must interpret both the head and the tail of the chain. This allows the system
to maintain uniform interface interpretation, as LF now minimally interprets the
position that PF interprets as well. This explains why (61a) is grammatical.
This still leaves (61b) unaccounted for. As said, the problem for its ungram-
maticality seems to lie in the presence of an indirect object. Svenonius (2000)
argues that the negative phrase and the indirect object compete for the same struc-
tural position. This problem does not arise in a complex tense, where two verbal
heads are generated and an additional specier position is consequently available.
For lack of an alternative stated directly in terms of the present proposal, I will
assume that something along these lines is correct.
. Conclusion
In this paper, I argue that Holmbergs Generalization should not be limited to
just the observation that verb movement feeds object shift. Like Holmberg, I be-
lieve that the generalization is broader, including double object and particle data.
Moreover, I believe that object-to-subject raising and short verb movement, facts
usually ignored, should not be excluded fromthe discussion. The broader general-
ization proposed (thematic elements should obey shape conservation within the
thematic domain) is taken to be a mapping rule between PF and LF and is for
this reason stated in syntactic terms. This enables us to account for a number of
facts in one location of the grammar instead of several. The two generalizations
formulated at the end of Section 2 are accounted for. Object shift across a verb
or indirect object is illegitimate because it violates TSC. Object shift across a pre-
object particle is out for the same reason. Object-to-subject raising across a verb
or indirect object is grammatical, because the object moves to a position that is
interpreted as thematic. Object-to-subject movement across a pre-object particle
is ungrammatical, because the landing site of the object is by necessity outside of
the thematic scope of the particle. Hence, LF will need to interpret the object trace
and a violation of shape conservation results. So although predication theory does
not categorically forbid what looks like shape distortion, it places the expected
restrictions on the extent to which this is possible.
A fair question to ask is whether we need an independent rule of shape con-
servation. How fundamentally part of UG is it, for instance? First of all, it will
be clear that the present proposal has not addressed various kinds of shape dis-
tortion. What do we do with languages showing free argument placement, for
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.35 (2115-2177)
Shape conservation, Holmbergs generalization and predication 8,
instance? There are several possibilities. We could take shape conservation to be
a meta-parametric property, not part of a non-congurational language. Alter-
natively, other properties, such as morphological case, may give rise to a more
exible syntax, where different word orders can be base-generated (an example
could be German). It is also possible that extensive word order variation within
a language signals the availability of designated focus and topic positions, per-
haps even within the thematic domain (an example could be Hungarian). If LF
interprets these positions, TSC is not violated.
Second, one could hold against TSCthat it is a syntactic rule that cannot be de-
rived from either of the interfaces. In contrast, one could look at a PF-approach as
an attempt to account for a set of data by referring to properties of the PF-interface,
so that the facts here discussed are ultimately a by-product of constraints that are
conceptually necessary. An attempt, however, is not the same as an achievement.
Just as one can try to deduce properties of the PF-interface from Holmbergs Gen-
eralization, one can try to deduce properties of the mapping system (i.e. syntax)
from them. Whether either of the attempts is superior, in the sense of only hav-
ing to make use of independently required or even conceptually necessary
mechanisms, is something that cannot be concluded at the moment. It is, for in-
stance, just an hypothesis that grammar makes use of phases. It is not a conceptual
necessity. Hence, any claim about PF that hinges on this assumption cannot be
conceptually necessary either. The debate about where in the grammar to account
for Holmbergs Generalization therefore continues and will benet from investi-
gating whether isomorphism in general is a matter of ordering (such as in the
PF-approaches) or a matter of mapping (as in the shape conservation approach,
cf. Williams 2003).
References
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. (2004). Beyond Morphology: Interface conditions on word formation.
Oxford: OUP.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2002). Movement across phonologically visible categories. Handout of a
talk at the MIT ling-lunch, December 5th 2002.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2005). Holmbergs generalization and cyclic linearization: Remarks on
Fox and Pesetsky. Theoretical Linguistics 31 (Special issue on object shift, K. . Kiss (Ed.)).
Basilico, D. (1998). Object position and predication forms. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 16, 541595.
Bayer, J. & Kornlt, J. (1994). Against scrambling as an instance of Move-alpha. In N. Corver &
H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches
to free word-order phenomena (pp. 1760). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bobaljik, J. (1995). Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inection. PhD dissertation, MIT.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.36 (2177-2303)
8o Olaf Koeneman
Bobaljik, J. (2002). A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and covert movement. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 197267.
Bobaljik, J. (2005). Re: CycLin and the role of PF in object shift. Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 111
125. (Special issue on object shift, K. . Kiss (Ed.)).
Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591656.
Brandt, P. (2003). Cipient predication: Unifying double object, dative experiencer and existen-
tial/presentational constructions. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chierchia, G. (1995). Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In G. Carlson &F. Pelleties
(Eds.), The generics book (pp. 176233). Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings
in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 184221). Waltham MA: Ginn.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 425504.
Davidson, D. (1966). The logical form of action sentences. In D. Davidson (1980), Essays on
Actions and Events (pp. 105122). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Deh, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., & Urban, S. (Eds.). (2002). Verb-particle Explorations.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fox, D. & Pesetsky, D. (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics,
31, 145. (Special issue on object shift, K. . Kiss (Ed.)).
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Haiden, M. (2006). Verb particle constructions. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The
Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 5 (pp. 344375). Malden MA: Blackwell.
Haider, H. (2004). How to turn German into Icelandic and derive the OV-VO contrasts.
Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 8, 153.
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic
relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 53109).
Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Hellan, L. & Platzack, C. (1999). Pronouns in Scandinavian languages: An overview. In H.
van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 123142). Berlin: Mouton De
Gruyter.
Hermon, G. (1985). Syntactic Modularity [Studies in generative grammar 20]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547593.
Holmberg, A. (1986). Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and
English. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.
Holmberg, A. (1999). Remarks on Holmbergs generalization. Studia Linguistica, 53, 139.
Holmberg, A. & Platzack, C. (1995). The Role of Inection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: OUP.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT
Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford:
OUP.
Josefsson, G. (1992). Object shift and weak pronominals in Swedish. Working papers in
Scandinavian syntax, 49, 5992.
Kathol, A. (2000). Linear Syntax. Oxford: OUP.
Kitagawa, Y. (1989). Deriving and copying predication. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics
Society, 19, 270300.
Koeneman, O. & Neeleman, A. (2001). Predication, verb movement and the distribution of
expletives. Lingua, 111, 189233.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:40 F: LA9702.tex / p.37 (2303-2422)
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335392.
Maling, J. (1990). Clause-bounded Reexives in Modern Icelandic [Syntax and Semantics 24],
277287. San Diego CA: Academic Press.
Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. A.
Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar (pp. 113150). Stanford CA: CSLI.
McIntyre, A. (2004). Event paths, conation, argument structure and VP shells. Linguistics, 42,
523571.
Mishra, M. K. (1991). Dative/experiencer subjects in Maithili. In M. K. Verma & K. Mohanan
(Eds.), Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages (pp. 105118). CSLI. (Distributed by
University of Chicago Press).
Mller, G. (2000). Shape conservation and remnant movement. In M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N.
Hall, & J.-Y. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, 30 (pp. 209241).
Amherst MA: GLSA.
Neeleman, A. (1994). Complex Predicates. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Neeleman, A. & Koot, H. Van de (2002). The congurational matrix. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 529
574.
Neeleman, A. & Koot, H. Van de (In prep). Theta Theory. Ms. University College London.
Neeleman, A. & Weerman, F. (1999). Flexible Syntax: A theory of case and arguments. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Ngonyani, D. (1996). The Morphosyntax of Applicatives. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Nilsen, . (2005). Some notes on cyclic linearization. Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 173185.
(Special issue on object shift, K. . Kiss (Ed.)).
Partee, B. (1973). Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. Journal of Philo-
sophical Society, 2, 509534.
Pylkknen, L. (2000). What applicative heads apply to. In M. Williams & E. Kaiser (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium [Upenn Working papers in
linguistics 70] (pp. 197210). Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Richards, M. D. (2004). Object Shift and Scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study
in symmetrical syntax. PhD dissertation, Cambridge.
Roberts, I. (1991). Excorporation and minimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 209218.
Rgnvaldsson, E. (1987). On word order in Icelandic. Proceedings of the seventh Biennial
Conference of Teachers of Scandinavian Studies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 3349.
London: University College London.
Svenonius, P. (1996). The verb-particle alternation in the Scandinavian languages. Draft,
University of Troms, Norway.
Svenonius, P. (2000). Quantier movement in Icelandic. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), The Derivation
of VO and OV (pp. 255292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verma, M. & Mohanan, K. (1991). Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. CSLI.
(Distributed by University of Chicago Press).
Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 101139.
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203238.
Williams, E. (1989). The anaphoric nature of -roles. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 425456.
Williams, E. (1994). Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Williams, E. (2003). Representation Theory. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Zeller, J. (2001). Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.1 (55-354)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans
Complex predicates and head movement
Mark de Vos
Rhodes University, South Africa
The central aim of this paper is to account for Quirky Verb Second, a peculiar
construction in Afrikaans which optionally pied-pipes a coordinated verbal clus-
ter to verb-second position. This is unique among the Germanic verb-second
languages. It is demonstrated that narrow syntax can operate, not only over fea-
ture bundles, but over features within feature bundles. It is argued that verbal
head-movement may indeed be phonological feature movement (Boeckx &
Stjepanovic 2001; Chomsky 2000; Zwart 1997), but with the added caveat that it
can also be true syntactic movement in certain instances. The proposal has impli-
cations for theories of head movement, excorporation and coordination.
:. Introduction
Cross-linguistically, posture verbs tend to become grammaticalized and to encode
aspectual information such as durativity (Kuteva 1999). The fact that this occurs
in a wide-range of unrelated languages makes posture verbs particularly interest-
ing objects of study. Afrikaans uses a small set of auxiliary-like posture verbs as
markers of durativity in a particular type of restructuring conguration.
(1) Waarom
why
sal
will
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit
sit
en
and
wegjaag?
away.prt-chase
Why will Jan chase the elephants away
This example illustrates a verb-second sentence with a coordinated verbal string in
sentence-nal position (bold). Like Dutch, Afrikaans is an OV language Barbiers
(2000) with verb-second in matrix clauses and in embedded clauses in some
registers and varieties (Biberauer 2002, 2003). Following established wisdom, I
take verb movement to involve at least head movement from V to T along the
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.2 (354-420)
o Mark de Vos
lines suggested by Zwart (1997).
1
Whether T-to-C movement specically involves
head movement (Den Besten 1989) or not (Biberauer 2003; Nilsen 2003; Zwart
1997) is a question that will not be directly relevant to the issue at hand. Whatever
mechanism is ultimately responsible for T-to-C movement is dependent on initial
head-movement to T.
Returning to example (1), the clause-nal verb string consists of a lexical verb,
wegjaag chase away coordinated with a verb of posture, sit sit. The posture verb
does not necessarily imply that Jan was seated but rather denotes durativity. Thus,
the coordinated predicates together refer to a single event of chasing the elephants
away; not to a discrete event of sitting and to another of chasing.
The posture verb is known in the Afrikaans literature as an Indirect Linking
Verb (ILV) or Indirekte Skakelwerkwoord and is part of a closed class of such verbs
including loop walk, sit sit, l lie down and staan stand. The fact that the object
occurs to the left of the posture verb (in Spec vP or alternatively Spec AgrOP)
indicates that this is an instance of restructuring. What is remarkable about this
Afrikaans construction is that the coordinated verbal string can be pied-piped as
part of verb-second, stranding the separable particle. Henceforth, the pied-piped,
complex, coordinated predicate will be called a Complex Initial. The non-pied-
piped complex, coordinated predicate will be referred to as the verbal string. The
phenomenon itself will be called Quirky verb-second.
(2) a. Waarom
why
sit
sit
en
and
jaag
chase
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit en weg
away.prt
jaag?
Why does Jan chase away the elephants?
b. Waarom
why
sit
sit
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit en
and
wegjaag?
away.prt-chase
Example (2a) illustrates how the Complex Initial (i.e. the fronted, coordinated
verbal string) can undergo inversion, occurring in second position and to the left
of the subject.
2
That this appears to be optional is demonstrated by (2b) which has
the same denotation.
3
There are several reasons why this phenomenon is fascinating. There is the
obvious fact that a complex, coordinated predicate is pied-piped as part of verb-
:. But also see (Nilsen 2003; Biberauer 2003).
i. The phenomenon is not limited to coordinated predicates (i.e. ILVs) but can also occur with
a subset of restructuring, raising verbs of an aspectual nature (i.e. Direct Linking Verbs/DLVs).
This will be discussed in Section 6.
. That both sentence types have the same meaning is attested to by (Donaldson 1993; Ponelis
1993; Robbers 1997).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.3 (420-470)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans :
second. Such pied-piping is optional and does not lead to a semantic difference.
This pied-piping is unique among the Germanic verb-second languages and raises
important questions about the nature of head movement. To this end, it is nec-
essary to determine whether the pied-piped constituent is indeed a head. There
is a variety of evidence showing that pied-piped, coordinated predicates do in-
deed act as a single verbal head.
4
First, there is the fact that the Complex Initial
displays the same distribution as an ordinary verbal head: it displays a matrix-
embedded asymmetry with respect to verb-second. Examples (3a, b) illustrate the
matrix-embedded asymmetry characteristic of simplex predicates.
(3) a. Jan
Jan
jaag
chase
die
the
olifante
elephants
weg
away.prt
Jan chases away the elephants
b. . . . dat
. . . that
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
wegjaag
away.prt-chase
. . . that Jan chases away the elephants
The same distribution is evident with Afrikaans coordinated complex predicates
as illustrated in examples (4).
(4) a. Jan
Jan
sit
sit
en
and
jaag
chase
die
the
olifante
elephants
weg
away.prt
Jan chases the elephants
b. . . . dat
. . . that
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit
sit
en
and
wegjaag
away.prt-chase
. . . that Jan chases the elephants
The fact that the ILV coordinated predicates and simplex verbs exhibit the same
distribution strongly suggests that the pied-piped predicate acts as a single, verbal
head. Moreover, the second position of the clause is usually reserved for verbal
heads in a verb-second language like Afrikaans. This indicates that the complex
predicate which occurs in second position must also be a head.
5
The second major argument for the head status of the pied-piped predicate
is the fact that no non-verbal material may intrude within it. In this regard, con-
sider the position of the separable particle in examples (4). It will be noted that the
particle occurs within the coordinated structure when the verbal string is in situ.
|. The head-status of Complex Initials of this type is hardly controversial and has been noted
by many researchers including (Den Besten 1988, 2002; Donaldson 1993; Ponelis 1993; Robbers
1997).
,. It might be suggested that if verb movement to T is recast in terms of remnant movement
(Mahajan 2001; Mller 2004), then this argument might be vacuous. This option is discussed
and rejected in Section 3.4.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.4 (470-544)
i Mark de Vos
However, when pied-piping occurs, the particle is stranded in sentence-nal posi-
tion. Importantly, the particle can never be pied-piped along with the coordinated
verbs (5).
(5) *Jan
Jan
sit
sit
en
and
wegjaag
away.prt-chase
die
the
olifante
elephants
Similarly, neither high nor low adverbs can occur within the pied-piped complex
predicate (e.g. (6) and (7)) and still retain the aspectual reading. It is thus a true
verbal cluster in its pied-piped position.
(6) *Jan
Jan
sit
sit
en
and
sorgvuldig
carefully
jaag
chase
die
the
olifante
elephants
weg
away.prt
(intended) Jan chased the elephants away with care
(7) *Jan
Jan
sit
sit
en
and
waarskynlik
probably
jaag
chase
die
the
olifante
elephants
weg
away.prt
(intended) Jan probably chased the elephants away
These arguments strongly suggest that the pied-piped coordinated predicate is a
single head.
i. Coordinated predicates in comparative perspective
Before discussing structural properties of Quirky verb-second, it is important to
place it in a comparative context. Modern Germanic languages that utilize posture
verbs to indicate aspect tend to utilize a semantically light functional head that
can have the morphological form of a subordinator (8a) or a coordinator (8b, c)
or be homophonous between the two /og (8d).
6
(8) a. Wat
what
zat
sat
hij
he
te
to
eten
eat-inf
What was he eating? [Dutch]
b. What did he sit and eat? [English]
c. Wat
what
sit
sit
hy
he
en
and
eet
eat
What is he eating? [Afrikaans]
d. Hva
what
sitter
sit-n
han
he
og
and
spiser?
eat-n
What is he eating? [Norwegian]
o. The Norwegian and Swedish pseudo-coordinative particles are homophonous between a
subordinator and coordinator.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.5 (544-616)
If one looks only at pseudo-coordinationin Standard languages then it would seem
that there is a generalization regarding agreement:
(9) a. with subordinative markers, the aspectual verb may be nite but the
lexical verb is always innitival;
b. with coordinative markers, the aspectual verb and the lexical verb must
have the same inectional form.
7
However, a closer look at dialectal microvariation shows this to be untrue. The
following examples fromWest-Flemish dialects showthat the aspectual and lexical
verbs can have different morphological forms. For instance, in (10a) the aspectual
verb has nite marking while the lexical verb is an innitive. Thus, there is no
correlation between the coordinator/subordinator and agreement.
(10) a. Jan
Jan
zat
sat
een
a
boek
book
en
and
lezen
read-inf
Jan was reading a book [Izenberge: (Haslinger & Van Koppen 2003)]
b. En
he
stoan
stand-n
en
and
zagen
complain-inf
He is complaining [Merckeghem:(Haslinger & Van Koppen 2003)]
c. Dien
the
jongen
boy
zit
sit-n
voorzekers
surely
televisie
television
en
and
kijken
watch-inf
The boy is surely watching TV
[Wulvergem: (Haslinger & Van Koppen 2003)]
These data are supported by historical evidence. The following nineteenth cen-
tury example illustrates a pseudo-coordinative construction in which the aspectual
verb is nite and the lexical verb is an innitive (Ijbema 2003).
(11) a. daer
there
sy
she
sat
sat
en
and
huylen
cry-inf
she was sitting there and crying (Ijbema 2003)
Interestingly however, there does appear to be a correlation between the formation
of complex initials and agreement. A complex initial may only contain verbs with
the same morphological form of agreement. Consider the following paradigm
from Ijbema (2003) citing Gerritsen (1991).
(12) a. Marie
Marie
zit
sits
aardappelen
potatos
te
to
schillen
peel-inf
[Throughout Netherlands]
b. Marie
Marie
zit
sits
te
to
aardappelen
potatoes
schillen
peel-inf
[Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe]
. This is also the conclusion reached by Roberge (1994) based on some historical examples.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.6 (616-684)
| Mark de Vos
c. Marie
Marie
zit
sits
aardappelen
potatoes
en
and
schilt
peels
[Zeeland]
d. Marie
Marie
zit
sits
en
and
schilt
peels
aardappelen
potatos
[Regionally restricted in Netherlands]
e. *Marie
Marie
zit
sits
en
and
schillen
peel-inf
aardappelen
potatos
[Not attested]
With respect to pseudo-coordinative structures, these data show that verbs can
have the same agreement marking (12c, d) or different agreement marking (10).
The pair in (12d, e) are especially important because (12d) appears to be a complex
initial. This is supported by the ungrammaticality of (12e), a fact which would
be explained if both verbs are adjoined to T at some point in the derivation and
consequently must have the same agreement.
These comparative data lend credence to the assertion by Ponelis (1993) that
Afrikaans complex initials arose as a consequence of a loss of verbal inection.
Ponelis suggests that when the nite and non-nite forms of the verb became non-
distinct, examples like (12d, e) would have been indistinguishable.
8
This begins
to explain the paucity of complex initials in modern Germanic languages which,
with the exception of Afrikaans, have at least some inectional morphology. The
preceding data show that the morphological component constrains the form of
complex initials. Thus, it follows that Afrikaans will be far less restricted in form-
ing coordinated predicates than other Germanic languages. This also predicts that
complex initials are, in principle possible in Germanic languages, provided that
(a) a pseudo-coordinative strategy is used and (b) that the agreement matches on
both verbs. While this strategy seems to be restricted, the data in (12d) show that
it is, in principle, possible.
8. An anonymous reviewer has pointed out an alternation that supports this point. Since
Afrikaans lacks inectional morphology, it is not possible to ascertain whether complex ini-
tials have nite features on both coordinated verbs. However, the verb wees be is one of the
few Afrikaans verbs that have distinctive nite and non-nite forms. Although it is extremely
degraded when used in an ILV context, there remains relative judgement. To the extent that this
is grammatical at all, it suggests that complex initials may derive from something like (12e).
(1) a. Waarom staan jy en ongelukkig *wees/**is
why stand you and unlucky be.inf/be.n
Why are you being unhappy?
b. Waarom staan en *wees/**is jy ongelukkig?
why stand and be.inf/be.n you unlucky
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.7 (684-733)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans ,
. The base structure of Afrikaans coordinated predicates
In this section, the structure motivating ILV coordinated predicates is explored.
ILV coordinated predicates behave like single verbs in the sense that they can un-
dergo head-movement and refer to a single event. On the other hand, the presence
of the separable particle within the coordinated structure in examples like (1) and
(4b) suggests that the coordinated verbal string is not a constituent at all. This
apparent paradox can be resolved by the following structure.
(13)
vP
Subject v
v VP
ILV v
en v
Object
Particle
V
V
]
]
In this structure, the ILV is coordinated with a phonetically empty little v. In the
absence of V-v raising, V remains in situ and occurs to the right of the object
(Barbiers 2000). Thus, the lexical verb is not a constituent with the coordinated
V+en+v complex. The position for objects is to the left of V. It is also assumed
that the separable particle is adjoined to VP.
9
This structure is supported by the
distributions of subjects, objects, particles and adverbs.
Given structure (13), there are potentially three elds for XP-like material.
These are labelled Fields A, B and C for convenience.
(14)
A
ilv
sit
B
and
en
C
lexical verb
jaag
(as in example (1))
Field A would be Spec vP or higher, including AgrOP. It is the unmarked position
for subjects, objects, adverbials and other material associated with the functional
layer. Field B corresponds to an adjunction point between two conjoined heads.
Consequently, it is expected that no XP-like material could ever occur in this po-
sition. Finally, Field C is equivalent to VP adjunction and Spec VP and might
potentially host low adverbs of manner, separable verbal particles and conceiv-
. Whether or not the separable particle itself is base-generated in a still lower small clause is
immaterial for the moment. It is only necessary that the particle occurs to the left of the lexical
verb at some point in the derivation.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.8 (733-808)
o Mark de Vos
ably, some types of low objects. These predictions are explored in the following
subsections.
.: Distribution of subjects
In the following examples, an expletive is located in subject position, forcing the
indenite subject to remain in Spec vP corresponding to Field A. Subjects can
only occur in Field A (15a). As expected, it is not possible for the subject to occur
in either Fields B or C (15b, c). This is consistent with the proposed structure.
(15) a. Daar
there
sal
will
altyd
always
iemand
somebody
sit
sit
en
and
eet
eat
There will always be somebody eating [In A]
b. *Daar
there
sal
will
altyd
always
sit
sit
iemand
somebody
en
and
eet
eat
There will always be somebody eating [*In B]
c. *Wat
what
sal
will
daar
there
altyd
always
sit
sit
en
and
iemand
somebody
eet?
eat
There will always be somebody eating [*In C]
.i Distribution of adverbs
The fact that different adverbs systematically select different points of adjunction
(Ernst 2002) provides a useful tool to disambiguate structures. Field Acorresponds
to a variety of positions in the functional layer and is thus the unmarked position
for many adverbs (16a).
10
Since adverbs are XPs, they cannot occur in Field B
(16b). Finally, higher adverbs cannot occur in Field C, although lower adverbs
which can adjoin to VP typically can (16c). This shows that the lexical verb is not a
constituent with the ILV and the coordinator. This is congruent with the proposed
structure (13).
(16) a. Wat
what
gaan
go
Jan
Jan
waarskynlik/
probably
altyd/
always
herhaaldelik/
repeatedly
vinnig/
quickly
sorgvuldig/
carefully
morsig
messily
sit
sit
en
and
eet?
eat
What is Jan probably/ always/ quickly/ carefully/ repeatedly going to be
eating? [In A]
:o. Ernst (2002) points out that many adverbs which adjoin to VP can also adjoin to PredP,
which I take to be equivalent to vP i.e. Field A.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.9 (808-880)
b. *Wat
what
gaan
go
Jan
Jan
sit
sit
waarskynlik/
probably
altyd/
always
herhaaldelik/
repeatedly
vinnig/
quickly
sorgvuldig/
carefully
morsig
messily
en
and
eet
eat
eating? [*In B]
c. Wat
what
gaan
go
Jan
Jan
sit
sit
en
and
*waarskynlik/
probably
*altyd/
always
*herhaaldelik/
repeatedly
?
vinnig/
quickly
sorgvuldig/
carefully
morsig
messily
eet?
eat
eating? [Low adverbs in C]
It is interesting to note that these data also exclude a structure for the Afrikaans
construction based on clausal subordination. The following kind of subordinative
structure would predict that higher adverbs would be able to occur in Field C.
(17) . . . dat
. . . that
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
[
VP
[
VP
sit
sit
[
CP
[
CP
en
and
. . . [
VP
. . . [
VP
wegjaag
away.prt-chase
]]]
]]]
Since this prediction is falsied by (16c), the clausal subordination structure can-
not be correct.
. Distribution of objects
Afrikaans objects usually move to the left of the verb, to what I take to be a specier
of vP (18a).
11
However, a subset of objects can also occur in a lower position,
presumably the base position for objects (18b).
12
No objects can occur in Field B
(18c).
(18) a. Daar
there
sal
will
altyd
always
iemand
somebody
boeke
books
sit
sit
en
and
lees
read
There will always be somebody reading books [In A]
b. Daar
there
sal
will
altyd
always
iemand
somebody
sit
sit
en
and
boeke
books
lees
read
There will always be somebody reading books [In C]
c. *Daar sal altyd iemand sit boeke en lees [*In B]
::. The question of whether the object moves to a specier of vP or Spec AgrOP does not have
any bearing on the data discussed here.
:i. Objects appearing in this position tend to be no longer than a single word (Donaldson
1993) and so tend to be mass, generic terms or bare plurals. These tend to be the same principles
restricting the types of non-verbal material occurring in raising-verb clusters in Afrikaans more
generally (Robbers 1997). Although the question of why these elements are restricted in this way
is beyond the scope of this paper, answers could be found in the framework of Diesing (1997).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.10 (880-941)
8 Mark de Vos
Incidentally, it is worth noting that these low objects are probably not incorpo-
rated into the lexical verb because otherwise they would be pied-piped with the
complex, coordinated predicate. In fact, they can never be pied-piped in this way
(19b). It has also been pointed out by an anonymous reviewer that it is possible to
have both stranded prepositions and objects occupying this eld simultaneously.
This clearly runs against an incorporation analysis.
(19) a. Waarom
why
sal
will
Jan
Jan
sit
sit
en
and
boeke
books
lees?
read
Jan will read books
b. *Waarom
why
sit
sit
en
and
boeke
books
lees
read
Jan?
Jan
.| Distribution of separable particles
Separable particles are XPs occurring in a VP-adjoined position as illustrated in
(13). Whether or not they are base-generated in this position (as objects are) or
whether they are generated as the heads of small clauses in a still lower position is
not directly relevant at this point.
The distribution of separable particles has already been touched on in Section
1. It is clear from example (1) adapted here as (20a) that a separable particle can
occur in Field C. However, the separable particle cannot occur in either Field A
(20b) or Field B (20c).
13
(20) a. Jan
Jan
sal
will
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit
sit
en
and
wegjaag
away.prt-chase
Why will Jan chase the elephants away [In C]
b. */
??
Jan
Jan
sal
will
die
the
olifante
elephants
weg
away.prt
sit
sit
en
and
jaag
chase
[*In A]
c. *Jan
Jan
sal
will
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit
sit
weg
away.prt
en
and
jaag
chase
[*In B]
Incidentally, these particle distribution facts are important evidence against an
approach to Quirky verb-second based on remnant movement. Over the past sev-
eral years, there has been increased interest in recasting verbal head-movement
as remnant movement. Approaches such as those of Nilsen (2003) and Biberauer
(2003) retain head-movement for verb movement to the head of FinP/TP, but uti-
:. For some speakers (20b) is strongly ungrammatical. However, some informants claim that
examples like (20b) are strongly dispreferred but not ungrammatical. However, for all speakers,
the contrast between (20a, c) is robust. Given the contrast and the strength of the relative judge-
ments, I consider (20b, c) ungrammatical. Its ungrammaticality does not follow directly from
structure (13) and is assumed to be an independent but important fact about this construction
in Afrikaans.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.11 (941-1001)
lize remnant movement for verb-second itself (i.e. what was traditionally T-to-C
movement (Den Besten 1989)). Other frameworks follow the stronger hypothesis
that all head-movement is reducible to remnant movement (Mahajan 2000, 2001;
Mller 2004). In fact, it might be suggested that Afrikaans Quirky verb-second
is prima facie evidence for this kind of approach. After all, if all apparent head-
movement to T did involve remnant movement, then it would be expected that
verbal strings would be pied-piped. To explore this issue more fully, consider the
following straw-man outline of a remnant movement derivation (21).
(21) a. Start with a vP shell: [
vP
ilv en object verb]
b. Evacuate the vP shell: object [
vP
ilv en object verb]
c. Move the shell to T: [
vP
ilv en verb] object [
vP
ilv en object verb]
The derivation begins with a vP shell containing an coordinated predicate. The
non-verbal material is then evacuated from the vP. The vP is subsequently fronted
to simulate verb-movement.
However, there are good reasons why Afrikaans Quirky verb-second is not
derived by remnant movement (De Vos 2004). The rst of these is that a deriva-
tion like (21) does not conform to independently veried properties of remnant
movement in Afrikaans. It is known, that remnant movement in Germanic in
general (Den Besten & Webelhuth 1987), and Afrikaans in particular (Biberauer
2004) does not require obligatory evacuation of non-verbal material from the vP.
Such material is typically pied-piped. Consider the example in (22) of vP move-
ment to Spec TP as proposed by Biberauer (2003). Crucially, in this case, remnant
movement pied pipes all non-verbal material (including the separable particle
(22b)).
14
(22) a. . . . dat
. . . that
hy
he
die
the
olifante
elephants
(ge-)sit
pst-sit
en
and
wegjaag
away.prt-chase
het
aux
t
. . . that he was chasing the cattle away
b. *. . . dat
. . . that
hy
he
die
the
olifante
elephants
(ge-)sit
pst-sit
en
and
jaag
chase
het
aux
weg
away.prt
t
However, it might be argued that notwithstanding the previous argument, all non-
verbal material might be extracted from vP for various reasons. For instance,
arguments might be extracted for reasons to do with Case. Whatever the mer-
its of this approach, there are serious problems with the extraction of separable
particles.
:|. In fact, this is a crucial property of this movement for Biberauer (2004) who exploits it to
provide an interesting account of the EPP. Also note that the participle prex ge- is a preferred
option on ILVs in standard Afrikaans but is not necessarily obligatory.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.12 (1001-1083)
:oo Mark de Vos
Separable particles can typically scramble to the left of a verb cluster in lan-
guages like Dutch and Afrikaans when a coordinating marker is not present (23a).
However, the presence of an ILV construction does not allow such scrambling as
illustrated in (20c), adapted here as (23b).
(23) a. Waarom
why
sou
would
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
weg
away.prt
laat
allow
weg gaan?
go
Why would Jan let the elephants go away?
b. Jan
Jan
sal
will
die
the
olifante
elephants
*/
??
weg
away.prt
sit
sit
en
and
weg jaag
chase
This means that, in the context of ILV constructions, separable particles cannot
be scrambled outside the vP for independent reasons. However, these are precisely
the congurations that require the particle to scramble if a remnant movement
approach is to succeed (De Vos 2004). This paradoxical situation is strong evidence
against an approach requiring this type of remnant movement.
., Summary of distributions
This section has explored the distributions of subjects, objects, adverbs and sep-
arable particles. These distributional data are tabulated here. It is quite clear that
they are congruent with the structure proposed in (13). Thus, Field C constitutes
a eld of adjunction for a variety of elements.
15
In contrast, Field B permits no
elements to intrude. This demonstrates that the coordinator is never adjoined to
the lexical verb, but forms a constituent with the aspectual verb.
The distributional evidence also suggests that explanations in terms of clausal
subordination or remnant movement are unfeasible.
Field A B C
Subjects No No
Higher Adverbs No No
Low Adverbs No
Bare Objects No
Separable Particles No No
:,. These elements are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance, it is conceivably possi-
ble to construe an object and a stranded preposition in Field C simultaneously. Of course, only
some syntactic entities can occur in Field C. A full discussion of why, say, denite objects cannot
occur in this eld is beyond the scope of this paper. However, an answer may be lie in the direc-
tion the analysis of Diesing (1997) who claims that different types of objects occur in different
positions.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.13 (1083-1128)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans :o:
|. Coordination and feature bundles
The following section will provide an analysis of Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans.
However, before proceeding, since coordination plays a central role in the follow-
ing discussion, it is necessary to outline a few fundamental assumptions concern-
ing it. The coordinator & takes (at least) two arguments X and Y in the following,
asymmetric conguration: [
&
X [
&
Y]]. Thus where XPs are coordinated, X is a
specier of & while Y is a complement (Johannessen 1998; Kayne 1994; Progo-
vac 1998a, b; Van Koppen 2005; Zoerner 1995). In a bare-phrase-structure system
(Chomsky 1995) the same congurationcan apply to heads. It is known, that coor-
dinative structures are different to other Spec-head-complement structures insofar
as the features of the conjuncts are accessible on the mother node (Cormack &
Breheney 1994; Johannessen 1998; Van Koppen 2005; Zoerner 1995).
Furthermore, coordinative structures are subject to the Law of Coordination
of Likes (LCL) (Chomsky 1957; Munn 1993; Sag et al. 1985; Schachter 1977). It
has long been known that a curious, yet important, lexical fact about conjunction,
is that in natural language, coordination almost always targets like constituents.
This property is usually referred to as the Law of Coordination of Likes in the
literature. The level of similarity may not be restricted to only syntactic features,
but also extends to the semantic function or functional equivalence (Dik 1968;
Haspelmath 2007; Munn 1993; Peterson 2004; Sag et al. 1985).
Coordination is also subject to the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC)
(Ross 1967), abstracting away from the Across-the-Board (ATB) exception to it.
(24) a. Coordinate Structure Constraint: In a coordinate structure, no element
contained in a conjunct may be moved out of that conjunct (Ross
1967: 89).
b. Across the Board Rule Application: In a coordinate structure, the same
constituent may be extracted from within all the conjuncts simultane-
ously (Ross 1967; Williams 1978).
The CSC is illustrated in the following example where no individual WH-item
may be extracted from any single conjunct, but can be extracted in ATB-fashion
from both conjuncts simultaneously.
(25) a. *Who did John see Mary and Peter observe t? [CSC]
b. Who did John see t and Peter observe t? [ATB]
In its original form, the CSC was a disjunctive condition incorporating a condition
to the effect that no conjunct may be moved (Ross 1967: 89). This will be referred
to as the Conjunct Condition but will not play any role in the remainder of this
article.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.14 (1128-1175)
:oi Mark de Vos
These fundamental assumptions about coordination are taken to be axiomatic
and ultimately a function of a deep, lexical property of coordination. Having
laid down these assumptions, it is possible to further explore the interaction of
coordination with verbal heads.
,. Deriving the base structure for ILV constructions
In this section, the derivation of the base structure for coordinated predicates will
be outlined. The derivation of example (26) is as follows.
(26) Waarom
why
sal
will
Jan
Jan
vir
for.obj-marker
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit
sit
en
and
loer?
look
Why will Jan spy on the elephants?
First, the lexical verb and object are merged, followed by the merging of little v.
(27)
v
v VP
Object V
loer
At this point, the coordinative head is merged directly to the v head, whereafter
the posture verb is merged in the same way. This yields the structure in (28). It is
important to note that this system of direct adjunction is not particularly novel.
This is precisely the same adjunction mechanism used by head-movement and
exploits the similarity between merge and move.
16
(28)
v
v VP
Object V
loer
sit v
en v
:o. The present adjunction mechanism eliminates the well-known problem whereby a head-
moved element does not c-command its trace. Since sit sit has been merged directly (and not
head-moved), there is no trace that requires government. Admittedly, the question still remains
as to whether such an adjunction obeys the Extension Condition, but this is a problem faced by
head-movement approaches in general and is not unique to the system presented here.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.15 (1175-1284)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans :o
Of course, it is also possible that the complex head sit en v is constructed rst and
then merged in one fell swoop with the VP. However, such a derivation is not the
only possible one. This kind of derivation has implications which will be explored
in Section 5.3.
This derives the proposed base structure in (13). Note that the LCL is respected
insofar as both v and the posture verb are (light) verbs. In addition, the object is
not contained within a coordinative structure, so it can be freely raised to Spec vP
(or Spec AgrOP) for Case licensing. This structure accounts for the restructur-
ing properties of this construction. Importantly, however, the lexical verb and the
posture verb do not forma constituent. This opens the possibility for low adverbs,
particles etc. to be adjoined at VP level. This accounts for all the distributional
facts in Section 3.
,.: Implications of the LCL for coordinated feature bundles
In structures like (13) and (28) where heads are coordinated, the question of what
exactly is being coordinated comes to the fore. The representation in (28) is not
precise enough since it does not necessarily distinguish between two potential
ways of representing the coordination of heads. Under traditional assumptions,
it is usually categories that are coordinated. However, it could just as well be that
coordination scopes over features within feature bundles. Assume feature bundles
to be comprised of at least, categorial, formal, phonological and semantic features.
These two possibilities are representedin (29) and (30), where the circle informally
represents the scope of coordination.
(29)
j j
(30)
j j
In (29), the entire feature bundle is coordinated with another. In (30), it is the
features themselves that are coordinated. Generally, these two situations are empir-
ically indistinguishable. Morphologically, the feature bundle is always isomorphic
with a particular verbal form regardless of whether coordination operates over
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.16 (1284-1358)
:o| Mark de Vos
some or all of its internal features. Froma syntactic perspective, all the features are
within the scope of coordination in both instances. Thus it would not be possi-
ble to extract a feature from one conjunct without violating the CSC. However, it
could be the case that Afrikaans ILVconstructions provide a context subtle enough
to distinguish between these two systems.
Consider the situation in (31) where one conjunct is a subset of the other. The
LCL ensures that only like features are coordinated. The fact that the rst fea-
ture bundle has a phonological feature whereas the other does not, means that the
phonological feature must remain outside the scope of coordination. This opens
the possibility for that feature to be extracted from the feature bundle without
incurring a violation of the CSC.
17
(31)
j j
,.i Deriving a simplex initial
Looking back at the structure in (28), it is evident that little v lacks a phono-
logical feature whereas the posture verb has a phonological feature by default. In
other words, structure (28) instantiates the situation described in (31). This means
that the phonological feature can be extracted as part of V-T movement without
incurring a CSC violation. This derives examples like (2b) repeated here.
(32)
T
T vP
VP v
sit v weg V
en v jaag
(33) Waarom
why
sit
sit
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit en
and
wegjaag?
away.prt-chase
:. The fact that one conjunct is a subset of the other is important for constraining this type
of structure; it is equivalent to underspecication of one conjunct. Were it not for this principle,
any category could be coordinated with any other category with which it shared at least one
feature. This is not supported by empirical evidence.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.17 (1358-1402)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans :o,
Afrikaans ILV constructions thus provide evidence for syntactic operations being
able to manipulate features within feature bundles. In this particular instance, it
is coordination that operates over features within feature bundles. Interestingly,
this is not at odds with the original formulation of the CSC and LCL which were
originally dened as operating over syntactic entities and not categories per se.
Nevertheless, the CSC and LCL can now be explicitly dened over features. I call
this subatomic syntax.
(34) a. Subatomic LCL: Coordination always coordinates like entities. Where
entity is a feature or set of features.
b. Corollary: A feature (or set of features) may only be coordinated with
another feature (of set of features) of the same type, which are made
available by the syntactic structure being coordinated.
(35) a. Subatomic CSC: Extraction from within any coordinated entity is disal-
lowed. Where entity is a feature or set of features.
18
b. Corollary: Extraction out of a coordinative structure is disallowed if that
extraction is from within the coordinated entities themselves. Extraction
is allowed if coordination does not scope over the extracted entity.
,. Creating and moving a complex initial
Thus far, only half the puzzle has been solved. It is still necessary to derive struc-
tures with complex initials, and more importantly, to show that such derivations
are a function of what has already been proposed. Example (2a) is repeated here
as (36).
(36) Waarom
why
sit
sit
en
and
jaag
chase
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit en weg
away.prt
jaag?
The derivation begins with merging the lexical verb, object and then v as for
derivation (27).
:8. The second part of the CSC, namely the Conjunct Constraint is presumably affected in the
same way: extraction of any single conjunct of a coordinated entity in its entirety is disallowed.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.18 (1402-1449)
:oo Mark de Vos
(37)
v
v VP
weg V
jaag
If the lexical verb is to undergo verb-second, then it is necessary that it raises to v at
an early stage of the derivation. This is a necessary condition for any theory of V-
to-T movement. It is precisely this movement that sets the stage for the derivation
of an example like (36).
(38)
v
v VP
weg V
t
jaag v
Subsequently, the coordinative head and the posture verb are directly adjoined to
the V+v complex as described in derivations (27) and (28).
(39)
v
v VP
weg V
t
sit v
en v
jaag v
Nowconsider the possibility raised around example (28) about whether is possible
to rst generate the verbal head and then merge it directly with VP. With respect
to (39) it is clearly not an option to merge the lexical verb together with v, en and
sit and only subsequently merge it. It is also not possible to rst merge sit en v
as a complex head with VP and then raise V to form a complex V + sit en v. In
order to do so, the lexical verb would have to raise across three heads (i.e. sit en
and v) which would violate the Head Movement Constraint. Consequently, the
derivation sketched in (39) is the only possible one.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.19 (1449-1503)
Now consider the nature of the feature bundles in derivation (39). The con-
junct containing the posture verb has phonological features by default. Although,
little v itself does not have any phonological features, the movement of V to v has
effectively provided the second conjunct (containing V+v) with phonological ma-
terial. According to the Subatomic LCL (34), all like features must be coordinated.
The feature bundles are illustrated in (40) where the circle informally represents
the scope of coordination.
(40)
j j
This means that the phonological feature resides within the scope of coordination
and cannot be extracted individually without incurring a CSC violation.
19
The
only possible outcome is for the entire coordinated head to be pied-piped to T.
20
Subsequent operations ultimately derive a verb-second effect. This derives exam-
ples like (2a) repeated below. Importantly, this means that head-movement of a
complex, coordinated head is not necessarily movement of a phonological feature
at all, but is an operation of narrow syntax.
(41)
T
T vP
Subject
V
t
v T
sit v
en
jaag
v
v
v
t VP
Object
Particle
[
[
:. ATB movement of the phonological feature in both conjuncts is also excluded on the basis
that ATB cannot move all the phonological material within a conjunct as is illustrated by the
following example.
(1) *Who did John meet t and t?
io. This tree abstracts away from object movement to Spec vP and subject movement to Spec
TP.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.20 (1503-1576)
:o8 Mark de Vos
(42) Waarom
why
sit
sit
en
and
jaag
chase
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
sit en weg
away.prt
jaag?
At this point, analyses have been proposed that can account for the Afrikaans facts
as described in the introduction. The optionality between examples (2a) and (2b)
ultimately reduces to the question of whether the lexical verb moves to v or not.
When V raises to v, a complex initial results; when V-v raising does not occur, a
simplex initial is the outcome.
Contingent movement: Before moving on, it is necessary to note that the present
analysis does not rule out the following example where the lexical verb has raised
to v even though subsequent movement of the coordinated predicate has not
occurred.
(43) *Waarom
why
sal
will
Jan
Jan
olifante
elephants
[
v
0 sit
sit
en
and
jaag]
chase
weg
away
jaag
It appears to be an independent property of verb-second contexts that the lexical
verb can only raise to v if it subsequently undergoes verb-second; V-v raising is
contingent on subsequent verb-second. This is illustrated by the following example
which shows that this effect is not a property of complex initial formation per se.
(44) *Waarom
why
sal
will
Jan
Jan
die
the
olifante
elephants
jaag
chase
weg
away
jaag
It is acknowledged that this appears to be a mysterious phenomenon for all verb-
second phenomena. However, it is a question that has to be addressed within the
auspices of a general theory of verb second and is beyond the scope of this paper.
o. Other types of moved verbal clusters
Until now, the entire discussion has focussed exclusively on coordinated predicates
formed with ILVs. However, there are also other types of verbal clusters that can
undergo V-to-T movement. These include complex initials with aspectual and re-
structuring, raising verbs (i.e. Direct Linking Verbs/DLVs). It will be demonstrated
that these types of complex can also be accommodated in the proposed analysis.
Afrikaans complex initials are not restricted to ILVs with overt coordinators.
A subset of aspectual verbs capable of undergoing verb-raising are Direct Linking
Verbs (DLVs). These can also occur in complex initials. Verb-raising refers to the
creation of a contiguous verbal cluster (bold) in OV languages like Dutch and
Afrikaans (Evers 1976).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.21 (1576-1647)
(45) . . . dat
. . . that
Jan
Jan
het
the.neut
balletje
ball-dim
ergens
somewhere
moet
must
laten
let-inf
vallen
fall-inf
. . . that Jan must drop the ball somewhere [Dutch]
(46) . . . dat
. . . that
Jan
Jan
die
the
bal
ball
iewers
somewhere
moet
must
laat
let
val
fall
. . . that Jan must drop the ball somewhere [Afrikaans]
Afrikaans DLVs include verbs like bly keep on doing (47), kom come(48) and
laat causative (49).
21
Most of these can also optionally alternate between sim-
plex and complex initials. Importantly, however, the coordinator is not overt in
these cases.
(47) a. Waarom
why
bly
stay
lees
read
Jan
Jan
die
the
boek?
book
Why does Jan keep reading the book?
b. Waarom
why
bly
stay
Jan
Jan
die
the
boek
book
lees?
read
(48) a. Waarom
why
kom
come
eet
eat
Jan
Jan
by
with
ons?
us
Why does Jan come and eat at our house?
b. Waarom
why
kom
come
Jan
Jan
by
with
ons
us
eet?
eat
(49) a. Die
the
heelagter
full-back
laat
let.caus
val
fall
die
the
bal
ball
The full-back drops the ball (Van Niekerk 1995: 150)
b. Die
the
heelagter
full-back
laat
let.caus
die
the
bal
ball
val
fall
The class of DLVs in Afrikaans is not homogenous (De Vos 2005; Robbers 1997)
and full justice cannot be done to the entire class here. Nevertheless, it has been
shown that many DLVs have formal properties very similar to ILVs (see De Vos
(2005) for a comprehensive overview). Thus, there does not appear to be any rea-
son why the same structure that was applied to ILV structures (13) should not also
be applied to DLV structures. The only caveat is that in these cases the coordinator
is covert.
22
i:. In addition, so called control verbs such as probeer try and begin to begin can also occur
in these kinds of constructions (De Vos 2005).
ii. Interestingly, in Nupe, it is precisely the coordination of verbal categories that requires a
null coordinator. In addition, Nupe also allows for extraction from the verb cluster (Kandybow-
icz 2005).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.22 (1647-1683)
::o Mark de Vos
As for the non-pied-piping cases, in the absence of V-v raising, v remains
devoid of phonological features. This means that the phonological features of
the DLV (in this instance laat) must remain outside the scope of coordination.
Consequently, they are free to move to T without incurring a violation of the CSC.
(50)
T
T vP
Subject
V
val
v
laat
EN
v
v
v
VP
Object
Particle
[
[
(51) Die
the
heelagter
full-back
laat
let.caus
die
the
bal
ball
val
fall
However, when V-v raising occurs, v is lexicalized by V. Thus, both the rst con-
junct (containing the DLV) and the second conjunct (containing V-v) have phono-
logical features. Consequently, the phonological features lie within the scope of
coordination and the entire complex predicate must be pied piped, should move-
ment be required.
(52)
T
T vP
Subject
V
t
v T
laat v
EN
val
v
v
v
t VP
Object
Particle
[
[
(53) Die
the
heelagter
full-back
laat
let.caus
val
fall
die
the
bal
ball
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.23 (1683-1733)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans :::
The proposed structure, in conjunction with the LCL and CSC can also derive
Quirky Verb Movement with DLVs.
A further prediction is that DLVs and ILVs should be able to be coordi-
nated together. In natural language, coordination allows conjuncts themselves to
be coordinated. Since the proposed structures (13) and (50) explicitly utilize co-
ordination, it should also be possible to coordinate DLVs and ILVs in a single
structure.
(54)
vP
SUBJ v
v VP
OBJ V v
1
2
DLV
1A
v en
EN ILV
1B
VERB
This prediction is fullled by examples like (55) which illustrate pied-piping of
a complex verbal predicate with both an overtly coordinated ILV and a (covertly
coordinated) DLV.
23
(55) Waarom
why
loop
walk
staan
stand
en
and
lees
read
Jan
Jan
die
the
boek?
book
Why is Jan (willfully) reading the book? [CI]
What is interesting about this structure (54) is that it makes a prediction about
what verbs can be pied-piped and which cannot. The second conjunct (subscript
2) consists of v. Since it lacks phonological features, it predicts that the rst con-
junct (subscript 1) should be able to be pied-piped. This is demonstrated in (56).
Such examples are possible but not common, according to Ponelis (1993).
(56) Waarom
why
loop
walk
staan
stand
Jan
Jan
die
the
boek
book
en
and
lees?
read
Why is Jan (willfully) reading the book?
i. Note that DLV loop seems to have a pejorative reading in this context. This type of reading
is often associated with pseudo-coordination in many languages but is not a necessary conse-
quence of it. See De Vos (2005) for a discussion of semantic properties of pseudo-coordination.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.24 (1733-1813)
::i Mark de Vos
In structure (54), within the rst conjunct (subscript 1), there is an overt verb
in each conjunct (1A and 1B respectively). There is thus phonological material
in both conjuncts. This predicts that it will not be possible to extract the DLV
separately, but that the entire rst conjunct (i.e. v
1
) should be pied-piped. The
impossibility of extracting the rst verb individually is illustrated in (57) which is
worse than either of the preceding two examples.
(57)
??
Waarom
why
loop
walk
Jan
Jan
die
the
boek
book
staan
stand
en
and
lees?
read
Why is Jan (willfully) reading the book?
Thus, it would appear that the proposed structure makes predictions about which
heads can be excorporated fromthe complex predicate. These predictions turn out
to be true.
. Conclusion
This paper has explored Afrikaans complex, coordinated predicates with Indirect
Linking Verbs. These appear to act both as contiguous, verbal heads when they
occur in T, but also as non-constituents when they occur in situ. Moreover, they
also allow for optional pied-piping of the entire coordinated verbal cluster to T.
This appears to be fairly unique among the Germanic verb-second languages and
hitherto there was no detailed account for it.
An analysis is proposed that derives the alternations from basic assumptions
about coordination. It is suggested that the Law of Coordination of Likes and the
Coordinate Structure Constraint may operate, not only over feature bundles and
categories, but also over subsets of feature bundles. In fact, this is not really a re-
formulation of the LCL and CSC so much as a strong interpretation of them. This
is because the original constraints were not formulated with respect to categories
per se but with respect to syntactic elements.
The proposal has implications for theories of excorporation insofar as it al-
lows for limited excorporation under very specic circumstances. In addition, the
analysis also suggests that head movement can be movement of phonological fea-
tures. This is a common point with the proposal of Zwart (1997) who argues
that verbal head movement is feature movement. Importantly, however, the pro-
posal also demonstrates that entire, coordinated predicate structures can undergo
head movement. The implication is that head-movement is not necessarily always
movement of phonological features but also has some substance in narrow syntax
contra Chomsky (2000) and Boeckx & Stjepanovic (2001).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.25 (1813-1966)
Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans ::
References
Barbiers, S. (2000). The Right Periphery in SOV Languages: English and Dutch. In P. Svenonius
(Ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV (pp. 181218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biberauer, T. (2002). Verb Second in Afrikaans: Is This a Unitary Phenomenon? Stellenbosch
papers in linguistics, 34, 1969.
Biberauer, T. (2003). Verb Second (V2) in Afrikaans: A Minimalist Investigation of Word Order
Variation. PhD thesis, St. Johns College, Cambridge.
Biberauer, T. (2004). Reconsidering the EPP and Spec-TP in Germanic. Cambridge Occasional
Papers in Linguistics, 1, 1540.
Boeckx, C. & Stjepanovic, S. (2001). Head-Ing Toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 345355.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (2003). Bare Phrase Structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and Binding
theory and the Minimalist Program (pp. 383439). Cambridge MA: Basil Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J.
Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step (pp. 89155). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Reprinted.
Cormack, A. & Breheney, R. (1994). Projections for Functional Categories. UCL working papers
in linguistics, 6, 3562.
De Vos, M. (2004). Verbal Compounding and Complex Initials. In D. Austin, V. Chondrogianni,
E. Daskalaki, N. Katsos, M. Mavrogiorgos, G. Newton, E. Orfanidou, M. J. Reeve, &J. Srioutai
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Postgraduate Conference on Language Research. Cambridge,
UK.
De Vos, M. (2005). The Syntax of Pseudo-Coordination in English and Afrikaans. Ph.D. thesis,
Leiden. Published by Igitur Publishing http://www.lotpublications.nl/index3.html.
Den Besten, H. (1988). Universal-Grammatik und/Oder Zweitsprachenerwerb: Der Fall
Afrikaans. In N. Boretzky, W. Enninger, &T. Stolz (Eds.), Essener Kolloquium ber Sprachkon-
takt, Sprachwandel, Sprachtod (pp. 1144). Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
Den Besten, H. (1989). Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit
Brabant, Tilburg, Amsterdam.
Den Besten, H. (2002). Khoekhoe Syntax and its Implications for L2 Acquisition of Dutch and
Afrikaans. In R. Mesthrie, and P. Roberge (Eds.), Focus on Afrikaans Sociohistorical Linguistics.
Part II, Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14, 356.
Den Besten, H. & Webelhuth, G. (1987). Remnant Topicalization and the Constituent Structure
of the VP in the Germanic SOV Languages. GLOW Newsletter, 18, 1516.
Diesing, M. 1997. Yiddish VP Order and the Typology of Object Movement in Germanic. Natu-
ral language and linguistic theory, 15, 369427.
Dik, S. (1968). Coordination: Its Implications for a Theory of General Linguistics. Amsterdam:
North Holland Publishing Company.
Donaldson, B. (1993). A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ernst, T. (2002). The Syntax of Adjuncts. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96]. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Evers, A. (1976). The Transformational Cycle in Dutch Language and German Language. Ph.D.
thesis, Ann Arbor MI.
Gerritsen, M. (1991). Atlas Van de Nederlandse Dialectsyntaxis (AND). Amsterdam: P. J.
Meertens Instituut.
Haslinger, I. & Van Koppen, M. (2003). De Verbale Hendiadys Als Pseudocordinatie. Taal en
Tongval, 1516, 102122.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 13:55 F: LA9703.tex / p.26 (1966-2107)
::| Mark de Vos
Haspelmath, M. (in press 2007). Coordination. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and
syntactic description II. (2nd ed.). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Ijbema, A. (2003). Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in Dutch Aspectual Constructions, Ms,
University of Leipzig.
Johannessen, J. (1998). Coordination. New York: OUP.
Kandybowicz, J. (2005). On the Syntax of Nupe Coordination. Presented at BLS 31, 10 February
2005.
Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kuteva, T. (1999). On sit/ stand/lie auxiliation. Linguistics, 37(2), 191213.
Mahajan, A. (2000). Eliminating head movement. GLOW Newsletter, 44, 4445.
Mahajan, A. (2001). Word Order and (Remnant) Movement. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Mller, G. (2004). Verb-second as VP rst. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 7(3),
179234.
Munn, A. B. (1993). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD disser-
tation, University of Maryland.
Nilsen, . (2003). Eliminating Positions: Syntax and semantics of sentential modication. PhD
dissertation, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
Peterson, P. (2004). Coordination: Consequences of a lexical-functional account. Natural lan-
guage and linguistic theory, 22, 643679.
Ponelis, F. (1993). The Development of Afrikaans. Frankfurt am Main: Die Deutsche Bibliothek.
Progovac, L. (1998). Structure for coordination (Part I). GLOT International, 3(7), 36.
Progovac, L. (1998). Structure for Coordination (Part II). GLOT International, 3(8), 39.
Robbers, K. (1997). Non-Finite Verbal Complements in Afrikaans. PhD dissertation, University
of Amsterdam.
Roberge, P. (1994). On the origins of the Afrikaans verbal Hendiadys. Stellenbosch papers in
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Sag, I., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T., & Weisler, S. (1985). Coordination and how to distinguish
categories. Natural language and Linguistic theory, 3, 117171.
Schachter, P. (1977). Constraints on coordination. Language, 53, 86103.
Van Koppen, M. (2005). One Probe-Two Goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD
dissertation, University of Leiden.
Van Niekerk, J. (1995). n Medewerkwoordklien vir Afrikaans. South African Journal of Linguis-
tics, 13(4), 146153.
Williams, E. (1978). Across the board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 3143.
Zoerner, E. (1995). Coordination: The syntax of & PhD dissertation, University of California,
Irvine.
Zwart, J. W. (1997). Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of
Dutch [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.1 (46-123)
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates
Marit Julien
Lund university, Sweden
It is generally assumed that whereas referential nominal phrases are at least
of DP size, predicative nominal phrases are structurally smaller. However, this
paper argues that at least in Scandinavian, predicative nominal phrases as well
as referential nominal phrases can be bigger than, equal to, or smaller than DP.
Hence, the only consistent difference between nominal arguments and nominal
predicates appears to be a semantic one: predicates but not arguments get a purely
intensional interpretation. Some nominal phrases are only good as arguments
because their lexical content makes a purely intensional reading hard to get. It is
however difcult, if not impossible, to connect the semantic difference between
nominal predicates and nominal arguments to any systematic difference in
syntactic structure.
:. Introduction
The idea that predicative nominal phrases are structurally smaller than argumental
nominal phrases, as argued by Hudson (1989), Bowers (1988, 1993a), Holmberg
(1993), Longobardi (1994), Mandelbaum (1994), Zamparelli (2000) and others,
has become more or less the standard view on the matter. More specically, ac-
cording to this viewthe argumental version of a nominal phrase contains structure
that is not present in its predicative counterpart, even when the two look similar,
as is the case with the argument a cat in (1a) and the predicate a cat in (1b). For
example, one would say that the argument is a DP while the predicate lacks the D
projection.
1
(1) a. Kalle
Kalle
sg
saw
ein
indef.masc.sg
liten
little.indef.masc.sg
katt.
cat
MASC
Kalle saw a little cat.
:. The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: def = denite, indef = indenite, inf =
innitive, masc = masculine, p = preposition, pl = plural, poss = possessive, pres = present,
re = reexive, sg = singular.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.2 (123-189)
::o Marit Julien
b. Kalle
Kalle
er
be.pres
ein
indef.masc.sg
liten
little.indef.masc.sg
katt.
cat
MASC
Kalle is a little cat.
However, it appears that in Scandinavian, full DPs, and even larger phrases, can
appear not only as arguments but also as predicates. At the same time, nominal
arguments as well as predicates can be structurally smaller than DPs. In short, the
idea that the contrast between functioning as an argument and functioning as a
predicate corresponds strictly to a contrast in syntactic category seems to nd no
support in Scandinavian.
i. Bare singular nominals
It is relatively well known that although all Scandinavian varieties except Icelandic
have indenite singular determiners, countable singular nouns often appear with-
out a determiner but possibly with an adjective even in Scandinavian outside of
Icelandic. Such bare singular nouns, or BSNs, can be predicates or arguments, as
the following Norwegian examples illustrate:
(2) a. Hege
Hege
er
be.pres
lrar.
teacher
Hege is a teacher.
b. Hege
Hege
kjpte
bought
(ny)
new
billett.
ticket
Hege bought a (new) ticket.
As Borthen (2003) discusses in much detail, the acceptability of BSNs depends
on the context. One type of context that allows BSNs is the conventional situation
type, which Borthen (2003: 136) denes as a property, state or activity that occurs
frequently or standardly in a given contextual frame and has particular importance
or relevance in that frame. Being a teacher and buying a ticket are conventional
situation types according to the denition, and consequently, the BSNs in (2a) and
(2b) are both fully acceptable.
Other context types that license BSNs are the comparison of types con-
text, exemplied in (3), and contexts of acquisition, possession and production,
exemplied in (4).
(3) (Ein)
a
pistol
pistol
er
be.pres
eit
a
meir
more
effektivt
efcient
vpen
weapon
enn
than
(ein)
a
brd-kniv.
bread-knife
A pistol is a more efcient weapon than a bread knife.
(4) Kari
Kari
kk
got
(ein)
a
ny
new
sykkel.
bike
Kari got a new bike.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.3 (189-249)
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates ::
In (2), the relevant contextual frames that allow the BSNs to appear come
ready-made by the culture. But even in cases where there are no such ready-made
frames, it is possible to construct new contextual frames where BSNs will be se-
mantically acceptable. One way to do this is to imagine a test or contest that
consists of several tasks. Then each task will be a conventional situation type in that
context, and BSNs will be allowed. For example, the following becomes acceptable
in such a context:
(5) Kandidat-a-ne
candidate-pl-def
mtte
had.to
gi
give
eple
apple
til
to
elefant.
elephant
The candidates had to give (at least one) apple to (at least one) elephant.
On the whole, there are no lexical restrictions concerning which nouns can appear
as BSNs. Individual nouns differ, however, with respect to how easy it is to provide
a context that will make them appropriate as BSNs. For nouns that can be part
of VPs that denote situations that are culturally salient, it is very easy to give BSN
examples, but for other nouns it takes more effort to nd a context where they can
be part of the description of a conventional situation type. Hence, some nouns
appear to appear more readily as BSNs than others, but this is only a consequence
of a difference in the availability of an appropriate context.
On the syntactic side, Borthen (2003) shows that BSNs cannot take wide scope
over quantiers. We see this if we compare (6a) to (6b). The expression in (6a) is
ambiguous, such that either alle ungane all the children takes scope over ei jakke
a jacket, or else ei jakke a jacket takes scope over alle ungane all the children. The
expression in (6b), by contrast, only allows an interpretation where alle ungane
takes scope over jakke.
(6) a. All-e
all-pl
ung-a-ne
child-pl-def
prvde
tried
ei
a
jakke.
jacket
(alle > ei jakke; ei jakke > alle)
All the children tried on a jacket.
b. Alle
all-pl
ung-a-ne
child-pl-def
prvde
tried
jakke.
jacket
(alle > jakke; * jakke > alle)
All the children tried on some jacket or other.
Moreover, a BSN cannot take wide scope over negation either. I demonstrate this
in (7).
(7) a. Eg
I
prvde
tried
ikkje
not
ei
a
jakke.
jacket
(Neg > ei jakke; ei jakke > Neg)
I did not try on a jacket.
b. Eg
I
prvde
tried
ikkje
not
jakke.
jacket
(Neg > jakke; * jakke > Neg)
I didnt try on any jacket.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.4 (249-318)
::8 Marit Julien
It is possible, as Pereltsvaig (2002) suggests, that BSNs take low scope because they
do not involve a quantier at all. As we see from the translation of (5), a BSN does
not imply a specied quantity, and does not refer to an individual. Either a singular
or a plural entity can be pragmatically understood. Moreover, if an overt quantier
is included, the phrase no longer has the properties that characterise BSNs.
The absence of quantication in BSNs is also seen fromtheir inability to make
an activity predicate telic. Thus, whereas (8a) is ne with or without an indenite
article in front of lue hat, only the version with the article allows an in X time ad-
verbial see the contrast between (8b) and (8c). That is, while an object concisting
of a singular noun with an article will supply the event with an end point, a BSN
object will not.
(8) a. Anne
Anne
strikka
knitted
(ei)
a
lue.
hat
Anne knitted a hat.
b. Anne
Anne
strikka
knitted
ei
a
lue
hat
p
on
to
two
timar.
hours
Anne knitted a hat in two hours.
c. *Anne
Anne
strikka
knitted
lue
hat
p
on
to
two
timar.
hours
Anne knitted a hat in two hours.
It is furthermore very difcult to get BSNs to take part in binding. Since it
is hard to nd relevant examples with BSNs as subjects (although BSNs can in
principle be subjects), the binding properties of these nominals are better tested
with certain ditransitive verbs. The pattern we will use is one where a verb takes
a theme argument and a location argument. The theme can then bind into the
location phrase, as the Norwegian example in (9) shows.
(9) Eg
I
har
have
sett
put
{ein
a
papegye
i
/papegye-n
i
}
parrot/parrot-def
p
on
pinne-n
pin-def
sin
i
.
3re.poss
I have placed a/the parrot on its perch.
If we now revert to our multi-task context again, and ask if we could have a BSN
as object of the innitive in (10), it appears that an overwhelming majority of
Scandinavian speakers reject this. They require the object to have a determiner, as
indicated.
(10) Oppgve
task
nummer
number
to
two
var
was
to
sette
put
*(ein)
a
papegye
i
parrot
p
on
pinn-en
stick-def
sin
i
.
re.poss
Task number two was to put a parrot on its perch.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.5 (318-367)
The inability to take part in binding, to have individual reference, or to take
high scope, and the obligatory absence of quantiers suggest that Scandinavian
BSNs lack the higher functional projections that we nd in ordinary nominal
phrases. That is, they do not have a D-projection or any projection associated with
quantication. They only contain the projections associated with the noun itself
plus the adjectival layer. They can nevertheless be arguments as well as predicates,
and moreover, they are subject to the same semantic licensing conditions regard-
less of whether they are arguments or predicates. This shows that the syntactic
contrast between nominal arguments and nominal predicates is not as clear-cut as
we tend to think.
. Some tests for predicates
Having concluded that Scandinavian BSNs can be arguments although they are
smaller than DPs, we will now look at the argument/predicate distinction from
the opposite angle, and ask how big a nominal predicate can be, structurally. We
then need tests by which nominal predicates can be identied. We will apply these
tests to copular constructions with two nominals, of the general form Nominal is
Nominal, which can be either equative statements or predications. In an equative
statement, that is, a proposition where identity of reference between two nominal
phrases is asserted or negated (see Heycock & Kroch 1998), both nominal phrases
are necessarily referential, and also, according to the standard view, of DP size
syntactically. In a predication, on the other hand, the predicative nominal phrase
is not referential, and on the view that is dominant presently, it is smaller than
a DP syntactically. In any case, it turns out that the two types of nominals react
differently to certain syntactic operations. These operations then constitute tests
that we can use to distinguish nominal phrases that are predicates from nominal
phrases that are referential.
.: Embedding under consider
One property that characterises a predicative nominal phrase is that it can be the
predicate of a small clause embedded under verbs like consider (Partee 1987;
Doron 1988), and it cannot then invert with the subject (Adger & Ramchand
2003). Consider the copula construction in (11a). Ein ink lrar a skilful teacher
must be a predicate here, since the embedding in (11b), with ein ink lrar in
predicate position, is perfectly ne. The construction in (11c), by contrast, is se-
mantically odd, as signalled by the # in front of the example. The problem is that
the name Berit is bad as a predicate (unless it gets a very unusual interpretation).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.6 (367-424)
:io Marit Julien
(11) a. Berit
Berit
er
is
ein
a
ink
skilful
lrar.
teacher
Berit is a skilful teacher.
b. Eg
I
anser
consider
Berit
Berit
som
as
ein
a
ink
skilful
lrar.
teacher
I consider Berit a skilful teacher.
c.
#
Eg
I
anser
consider
ein
a
ink
skilful
lrar
teacher
som
as
Berit.
Berit
I consider a skilful teacher Berit.
If we now take the construction in (12a), we see from (12b) and (12c) that it is
not good as a complement of consider, regardless of which of the two nominal
phrases is put in the predicate position. This shows that there is no predicate in
(12a), and that we are dealing with an equative statement.
(12) a. Den
that
mann-en
man-def
er
is
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
That man is Christer Platzack.
b.
#
Eg
I
anser
consider
den
that
mann-en
man-def
som
as
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
I consider that man Christer Platzack.
c.
#
Eg
I
anser
consider
Christer
Christer
Platzack
Platzack
som
as
den
that
mann-en.
man-def
I consider Christer Platzack that man.
As for the element som as, which (obligatorily) appears in front of the predicate in
the embedded small clauses shown above, it is arguably a realisation of a Pred head
(see Eide & farli 1999, 2001). On the assumption that all nominal predicates are
complements of Pred heads there must also be a Pred head in (11a). The reason
why it is not visible here must have to do with the PredP being the complement of
the copula. I will not go into details in this matter, however.
.i Topicalisation
In Scandinavian, topicalisation is another test for predicatehood. As Pereltsvaig
(2001) points out, only if the postcopular constituent is a true predicate can it un-
dergo topicalisation in these languages, such that it moves to clause-initial position
while the subject stays in place. That is, if the predicate moves to front in a negated
copular construction, the subject will still precede the negation. Irrelevantly, the
verb will move across the subject to yield V2 order. I show in (13) that this holds
for a copular construction with a nominal predicate, and in (14), I show the same
thing for a copular construction with an adjectival predicate. To emphasise the fact
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.7 (424-494)
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates :i:
that the claims put forward in this paper apply to Scandinavian in general, I give
these examples in Swedish.
(13) a. Berit r inte lrare. b. Lrare r Berit inte.
Berit is not teacher teacher is Berit not
Berit is not a teacher. A teacher, Berit is not.
(14) a. Berit r inte dum. b. Dum r Berit inte.
Berit is not stupid stupid is Berit not
Berit is not stupid. Stupid, Berit is not.
In an equative statement, by contrast, the two nominal phrases may switch posi-
tions, so that one or the other becomes the topic. But regardless of which phrase
is the topic, the other phrase will follow the negation. Thus, if we start from the
equative statement in (15a) and want to make Christer Platzack the topic, we can-
not do this simply by moving Christer Platzack, as in (15b); we also have to make
sure that the other nominal phrase ends up following the negation, as in (15c).
(15) a. Prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordiska
Nordic
r
is
inte
not
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
The prefect of the Nordic languages department is not Christer Platzack.
b.
#
Christer
Christer
Platzack
Platzack
r
is
prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordiska
Nordic
inte.
not
Christer Platzack, the prefect of the Nordic languages department is not.
c. Christer
Christer
Platzack
Platzack
r
is
inte
not
prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordiska.
Nordic
Christer Platzack is not the prefect of the Nordic languages department.
In (15c) Christer Platzack has become the surface subject. We can conclude that
an equative statement does not allow the postcopular nominal phrase to be top-
icalised. In a nominal predicative construction, on the other hand, the predicate
may well be topicalised and thereby moved across the subject.
. Pseudoclefting
As Fodor (1970) observed, and Zamparelli (2000) also points out, predicative
nominals but not referential nominals can be predicates in pseudocleft construc-
tions. This is true evenof Scandinavian. In (16a), we see that an adjectival predicate
can be pseudoclefted, and in (16b), we see that a nominal predicate can undergo
this operation. If we on the other hand pseudocleft a referential nominal phrase,
as in (16c), the result is semantically odd.
(16) a. Det
it
Berit
Berit
r,
is
r
is
jtte-duktig.
giant-skilful
What Berit is, is extremely skilful.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.8 (494-554)
:ii Marit Julien
b. Det
it
Berit
Berit
r,
is
r
is
lrare.
teacher
What Berit is, is a teacher.
c.
#
Det
it
den
that
dr
there
mann-en
man-def
r,
is
r
is
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
What that man is, is Christer Platzack.
.| Nonrestrictive relative clause
Another difference between referential and predicative nominals mentioned by
Zamparelli (2000) is that referential nominals but not predicative nominals can
combine with nonrestrictive relative clauses such that the relativised constituent
refers to an individual.
2
Thus, while the name in (17a) is ne together with a non-
restrictive relative clause, the BSN in (17b), which unmistakably is a predicate, is
not. If we add an indenite determiner, as in (17c), thereby creating a nominal
phrase that can be referential in this context, the construction is rescued.
(17) a. Den
that
mann-en
man-def
r
is
Christer
Christer
Platzack,
Platzack
som
that
jag
I
fr.vrigt
by.the.way
knner
know
vl.
well
That man is Christer Platzack, who I by the way know well.
b. *Berit
Berit
r
is
lrare,
teacher
som
that
jag
I
fr.vrigt
by.the.way
knner
know
vl.
well
c. Berit
Berit
r
is
en
a
lrare,
teacher
som
that
jag
I
fr.vrigt
by.the.way
knner
know
vl.
well
Berit is a teacher, who I by the way know well.
., Coordination
The last test to be presented here is coordination of postcopular phrases. Note rst
that (18), where an adjectival predicate is coordinated with a nominal predicate,
is fully grammatical. (From now on, I will use Norwegian examples to represent
Scandinavian, since it is easier for me to get them right, but that does not mean
that my conclusions hold only for Norwegian. Also note the BSN in nal position
in (18).)
(18) Buster
Buster
er
is
ein
a
ivrig
keen
jeger
hunter
og
and
god
good
til
to
P
to
INF
ta
take
fugl.
bird
Buster is a keen hunter and good at catching birds.
i. But as Doron (1988) notes, nominal predicates can combine with nonrestrictive relative
clauses where a property-denoting expression is relativised.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.9 (554-609)
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates :i
Actually, the conjuncts in (18) are probably both PredPs (Bowers 1993b; Baker
2003), which means that we have not coordinated constituents belonging to dif-
ferent lexical categories after all. Nevertheless, not all postcopular phrases can be
coordinated with equal success. For example, although the copular constructions
in (19a) and (19b) are both perfectly acceptable, coordinating the postcopular
phrases of these two constructions, as in (19c), gives a bad result.
(19) a. Prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordisk
Nordic
er
is
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
The prefect of the Nordic languages department is Christer Platzack.
b. Prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordisk
Nordic
er
is
ein
a
hyggeleg
nice
fyr.
guy
The prefect of the Nordic languages department is a nice guy.
c.
#
Prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordisk
Nordic
er
is
Christer
Christer
Platzack
Platzack
og
and
ein
a
hyggeleg
nice
fyr.
guy
The prefect of the Nordic languages department is Christer Platzack and
a nice guy.
The reason for the oddity of (19c) is that we have coordinated a referential nom-
inal phrase with a predicate. Hence, coordination can be used to show that two
phrases are not of the same semantic type. Nominal phrases that can be coordi-
nated with another phrase that is clearly referential must themselves be referential,
while nominal phrases that can be coordinated with another phrase that is clearly
a predicate an adjectival phrase, for example must itself be a predicate.
.o Summing up the tests
Let us now sum up the tests discussed in this section. We have seen that a nominal
predicate can be in predicate position under consider, it will leave the subject in
front of the negation when it is topicalised, and it will also allow pseudoclefting,
but it cannot combine with a nonrestrictive relative clause. A referential nominal
phrase, by contrast, cannot be in predicate position under consider, and when
it is topicalised, it will not allow another phrase to stay in the subject position.
Moreover, it does not allow pseudoclefting, but it can combine with a nonrestric-
tive relative clause. Finally, a nominal phrase is a predicate if it can be coordinated
with another predicate, and it is referential if this is not possible.
Equipped with these tests, we will now turn to the question of the size of
predicate nominals, with Scandinavian as our testing ground.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.10 (609-654)
:i| Marit Julien
|. Denite nominal phrases
It is clear that denite nominal phrases can be predicates (as pointed out e.g. by
Partee 1987). For example, if we start froma simple copula construction as the one
in (20a), with a denite nominal in postcopular position, we can embed it under
consider and have the denite nominal in predicate position, as in (20b), and we
can topicalise the denite nominal and have the subject stay in place, as in (20c).
Further, the denite nominal phrase can be pseudoclefted, as in (20d), and it can
be coordinated with an adjectival phrase, as in (20e).
(20) a. Jenny
Jenny
er
is
vinnar-en.
winner-def
Jenny is the winner.
b. Eg
I
anser
consider
Jenny
Jenny
som
as
vinnar-en.
winner-def
I consider Jenny the winner.
c. Vinnar-en
winner-def
er
is
Jenny
Jenny
ikkje.
not
The winner, Jenny is not.
d. Det
it
Jenny
Jenny
er,
is
er
is
vinnar-en.
winner-def
What Jenny is, is the winner.
e. Jenny
Jenny
er
is
yngre
younger
enn
than
deg
you
men
but
likevel
still
vinnar-en
winner-def
av
of
lp-et.
race-def
Jenny is younger than you but nevertheless the winner of the race.
f. Jenny
Jenny
er
is
vinnar-en,
winner-def
som
that
forresten
by.the.way
kjem
come.pres
her.
here
Jenny is the winner, who by the way comes here.
All these properties point to the same conclusion: the denite nominal vinnaren
the winner can be a predicate. The fact that it can also combine with a nonrestric-
tive relative clause, as in (20f), only serves to show that it can also be referential.
In themselves, these examples do not tell us much about the size of nominal
predicates, however, since the sufxed deniteness marker in Norwegian is not a
realisation of D. As pointed out in Taraldsen (1990) and in many later works on
Scandinavian nominal phrases, when an adjective, a numeral, or a weak quantier
precedes the denite noun, there is also normally a deniteness marker in front of
the modier, as illustrated in (21).
3
. Some exceptions to this general pattern are discussed e.g. in Julien (2005).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.11 (654-721)
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates :i,
(21) Jenny
Jenny
er
is
den
def.sg
udiskutable
undisputable
vinnar-en.
winner-def
Jenny is the undisputable winner.
We would therefore take the preposed deniteness marker to represent D, while
the sufxed deniteness marker represents a head much lower down in the func-
tional domain of the head noun, below the surface position of adjectives. Thus,
a nominal phrase consisting of nothing but a sufxed noun need not contain the
higher structural layers that we nd in DPs. In fact, since even BSNs may combine
with adjectives, we cannot tell, just by looking at it, whether the nominal predicate
in (20) is any bigger structurally than a BSN.
However, even the nominal phrase given in (21) can be a predicate. As I
demonstrate in (22), it can be in predicate position under consider, it can be top-
icalised across the subject, it can be pseudoclefted, and it can be coordinated with
an adjectival phrase.
(22) a. Eg
I
anser
consider
Jenny
Jenny
som
as
den
def.sg
udiskutable
undisputable
vinnar-en.
winner-def
I consider Jenny the undisputable winner.
b. Den
def.sg
udiskutable
undisputable
vinnar-en
winner-def
er
is
Jenny
Jenny
ikkje.
not
The undisputable winner, Jenny is not.
c. Det
it
Jenny
Jenny
er,
is
er
is
den
def.sg
udiskutable
undisputable
vinnar-en.
winner-def
What Jenny is, is the undisputable winner.
d. Jenny
Jenny
er
is
yngre
younger
enn
than
deg
you
men
but
likevel
still
den
def.sg
udiskutable
undisputable
vinnar-en.
winner-def
Jenny is younger than you but nevertheless the undisputable winner.
If I am right in assuming that the preposed denite determiner is a realisation of
D, the nominal predicate in (22) must be a DP. We then have another argument, in
addition to the BSN evidence, that the main distinction between predicative and
referential nominal phrases is not the absence of the DP level in the former and the
presence of the DP level in the latter. Predicate nominals can indeed be DPs. They
are characterised by their semantics: they can get a purely intensional reading, but
as will become even clearer in the following, it is difcult to connect this to any
particular syntactic property.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.12 (721-783)
:io Marit Julien
,. Possessed nominal phrases
In Scandinavian, there are many ways to realise a possessor internally to the pos-
sessed nominal phrase.
4
In the following we will look at some of the relevant
constructions to see how they behave with respect to the predicate tests.
,.: Postnominal possessors
Many varieties of Scandinavian make use of constructions with postnominal pos-
sessors. These possessors can be pronominal or nonpronominal, but with the
exception of nonpronominal possessors in Icelandic, they all trigger a sufxed
deniteness marker on the possessed noun. The Norwegian example in (23a)
illustrates this.
(23) a. katt-en
cat-def.masc.sg
min
my.masc.sg
my cat
b. den
def.sg
gaml-e
old-def
katt-en
cat-def.masc.sg
min
my.masc.sg
my old cat
In the double deniteness varieties Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish there
will also be a preposed deniteness marker if an adjective is present.
5
I show
this in (23b). Hence, when it comes to deniteness marking, the possessed
nominal phrases in (23) are exactly like the non-possessed nominal phrases in
(20) and (21).
If we now take the nominal phrase in (23b) and run it through the predicate
tests, it appears that it does not pass them. Although it is ne in postcopular po-
sition, as in (24a), it cannot appear in predicate position under consider see
(24b), it cannot be topicalised over the subject see (24c), it cannot be pseudo-
clefted see (24d), and it cannot be coordinated with an adjectival predicate
see (24e).
(24) a. Buster
Buster
er
is
den
def.sg
gaml-e
old-def
katt-en
cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
Buster is my old cat.
b.
#
Eg
I
anser
consider
Buster
Buster
som
as
den
def.sg
gaml-e
old-def
katt-en
cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
I consider Buster my old cat.
|. For an overview, see e.g. Delsing (1998, 2003) or Julien (2005).
,. Standard Swedish does not have postnominal possessors, but they are found in many
Swedish dialects, in particular in the north.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.13 (783-843)
c.
#
Den
def.sg
gaml-e
old-def
katt-en
cat-def
min
my.masc.sg
er
is
Buster
Buster
ikkje.
not
My old cat, Buster is not.
d.
#
Det
it
Buster
Buster
er,
is
er
is
den
def.sg
gaml-e
old-def
katt-en
cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
What Buster is, is my old cat.
e.
#
Buster
Buster
er
is
ganske
quite
smart
smart
og
and
den
def.sg
gamle
old-def
katten
cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
Buster is quite smart and my old cat.
One might think that there is a structural reason for this result. However, it turns
out that it is possible to construct phrases that look exactly parallel to den gamle
katten min my old cat but nevertheless pass the predicate tests. One example is
den beste vennen min my best friend, which is shown in (25).
(25) a. Helge
Helge
er
is
den
def.sg
best-e
best-def
venn-en
friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
Helge is my best friend.
b. Eg
I
anser
consider
Helge
Helge
som
as
den
def.sg
best-e
best-def
venn-en
friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
I consider Helge my best friend.
c. Den
def.sg
best-e
best-def
venn-en
friend-def
min
my.masc.sg
er
is
Helge
Helge
ikkje.
not
My best friend, Helge is not.
d. Det
it
Helge
Helge
er,
is
er
is
den
def.sg
best-e
best-def
venn-en
friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
What Helge is, is my best friend.
e. Helge
Helge
er
is
snill
kind
og
and
den
def.sg
best-e
best-def
venn-en
friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
Helge is kind and my best friend.
Admittedly, the adjective gamle old in (24) is in the positive grade whereas the
adjective beste best in (25) is in the superlative grade. But we have already seen, in
(22), that a nominal predicate may well contain an adjective in the positive grade.
Thus, there is no obvious formal difference between den beste vennen min and den
gamle katten min which could be responsible for their different behaviour with re-
spect to the predicate tests. The only clear difference between the two phrases is a
semantic one. Whereas den gamle katten min, because of its lexical content, tends
to get an referential interpretation, den beste vennen min easily allows an inten-
sional interpretation. Consequently, den beste vennen min is good as a predicate
but den gamle katten min is not.
The argument that predicate semantics is not directly connected to syntax
can be made even stronger. Each of the adjective plus noun combinations in the
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.14 (843-906)
:i8 Marit Julien
phrases that were focused in (24) and (25) can be turned into a compound, with
the adjective as the rst or nonhead part and the noun as the head. There is then no
preposed determiner, and thus no visible indication that there is a D-projection.
Nevertheless, these compounds behave in the same way syntactically as the corre-
sponding phrases with the adjective separated from the noun. In (26), we see that
gammelkatten min my old-cat fails the predicate tests, but in (30), we see that
bestevennen min my best-friend passes them.
(26) a. Buster
Buster
er
is
gammel-katt-en
old-cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
b.
#
Eg
I
anser
consider
Buster
Buster
som
as
gammel-katt-en
old-cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
I consider Buster my old cat.
c.
#
Gammel-katt-en
old-cat-def
min
my.masc.sg
er
is
Buster
Buster
ikkje.
not
My old cat, Buster is not.
d.
#
Det
it
Buster
Buster
er,
is
er
is
gammel-katt-en
old-cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
What Buster is, is my old cat.
e.
#
Buster
Buster
er
is
ganske
quite
smart
smart
og
and
gammel-katt-en
old-cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
Buster is quite smart and my old cat.
(27) a. Helge
Helge
er
is
best-e-venn-en
best-def-friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
Helge is my best friend.
b. Eg
I
anser
consider
Helge
Helge
som
as
best-e-venn-en
best-def-friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
I consider Helge my best friend.
c. Best-e-venn-en
best-def-friend-def
min
my.masc.sg
er
is
Helge
Helge
ikkje.
not
My best friend, Helge is not.
d. Det
it
Helge
Helge
er,
is
er
is
best-e-venn-en
best-def-friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
What Helge is, is my best friend.
e. Helge
Helge
er
is
snill
kind
og
and
best-e-venn-en
best-def-friend-def
min.
my.masc.sg
Helge is kind and my best friend.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.15 (906-980)
It can be argued that the possessor expressions in the possessed nominal phrases
in (26) and (27) have not moved out of the local domain of the possessed noun.
6
One indication that this is true is the fact that if adjectives or other prenominal ele-
ments were added, they would precede the possessed noun, just as in (24) and (25).
Hence, judging from the elements that are visibly present, the nominal phrases
now under discussion need not contain much functional material at all (although
I would assume that they do). And again, it is not easy to point to any structural
reason for their different abilities to be predicates. Instead, it seems that lexical
content is more important than syntactic form in this respect.
,.i Prenominal possessors
In Scandinavian, possessors can also be prenominal. In some varieties, possessors
are in fact always prenominal, but even in varieties where postnominal possessors
is the unmarked option, at least pronominal possessors can precede the noun if
they are focused. That is, all main varieties of Scandinavian have the construction
in (28), possibly with focus on the possessor.
7
(28) min
my.masc.sg
(svart-e)
black-def
katt
cat
my (black) cat
In Standard Danish and Standard Swedish, nonpronominal possessors are prenom-
inal and carry the possessive -s. This is also possible in written Norwegian (espe-
cially in Bokml) and in many dialects of Norwegian and Swedish (Torp 1973;
Delsing 2003). My example, in (29), is Norwegian.
(29) Kari-s
Kari-poss
(svart-e)
black-def
katt
cat
Karis (black) cat
Another prenominal possessor construction found in Norwegian, and in the Dan-
ish dialects of Jutland, is the so-called prenominal possessor doubling construc-
tion, which involves a preposed (proper name or common noun) possessor and a
pronominal element following it. I give a Norwegian example of this in (30).
(30) Kari
Kari
sin
re.poss.masc.sg
(svart-e)
black-def
katt
cat
Karis (black) cat
o. See Julien (2005) for a much more detailed discussion of the syntax of possessed nominals
in Scandinavian.
. There may be dialects that do not have the construction, so I dare not say that all
varieties have it.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.16 (980-1039)
:o Marit Julien
The prenominal possessor doubling construction is syntactically similar to the
construction with the possessive -s (see Fiva 1987; Delsing 1993, 1998; Krause
1999). The only difference between the two is that whereas the possessive -s only
spells out a possessive feature, the pronominal element in the prenominal posses-
sor doubling construction spells out other features as well.
8
In all Scandinavian prenominal possessor constructions, the possessor will
precede adjectives and numerals. As illustrated in (31), the elements that can
in their turn precede prenominal possessors are strong quantiers and demon-
stratives.
(31) all-e
all-pl
desse
these
{min-e/
my-pl/
Kari-s/
Kari-poss/
Kari
Kari
sine }
re.poss.pl
fem
ve
svart-e
black-pl
katt-ar
cat-pl
all these ve black cats of mine/of Karis
This means that prenominal possessors are located in the area where we otherwise
nd the prenominal determiner in nominal phrases containing adjectives or nu-
merals. In other words, Scandinavian nominal phrases with prenominal possessors
are quite large structurally.
Now consider (32), where I apply our predicate tests to the possessed nomi-
nal phrase Kari sin katt Karis cat. We see that not only is it ne in postcopular
position, but it can also be in predicate position under consider, it can be topi-
calised over the subject, it can be pseudoclefted, and it can be coordinated with an
adjectival phrase. It can also combine with a nonrestrictive relative clause, which
means that it can be referential, but this does not in any way mean that it is not a
predicate in other cases.
8. In (30), the additional features are a reexive/anaphor feature plus a set of phi-features
(gender and number) that are valued by the possessee. This is what we always nd in Norwegian.
But in Jutlandic dialects, an alternative is to have a pronominal element that reects the phi-
features of the possessor, as in the following example from Nielsen (1986: 65):
(i)
def
kone
woman
hendes
her.poss
kyse
bonnet
the womans bonnet
Here the possessive pronoun hendes reects a third person singular feminine possessor, and it
can only be preceded by a possessor with matching features. The reexive pronoun sin in (30),
by contrast, requires the possessee to be masculine and singular (for those speakers that retain a
three-gender system for others it will be common gender), but it combines with any possessor,
even (markedly or dialectally) with rst and second person possessors:
(ii)
%/?
min
my.masc.sg
sin
re.poss.masc.sg
katt
cat
my cat
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.17 (1039-1082)
(32) a. Buster
Buster
er
is
Kari
Kari
sin
re.poss
katt.
cat
Buster is Karis cat.
b. Eg
I
anser
consider
Buster
Buster
som
as
Kari
Kari
sin
re.poss
katt.
cat
I consider Buster Karis cat.
c. Kari
Kari
sin
re.poss
katt
cat
er
is
Buster
Buster
ikkje.
not
Karis cat, Buster is not.
d. Det
it
Buster
Buster
er,
is
er
is
Kari
Kari
sin
re.poss
katt.
cat
What Buster is, is Karis cat.
e. Buster
Buster
er
is
sju
seven
r
years
gammal
old
og
and
Kari
Kari
sin
re.poss
katt.
cat
Buster is seven years old and Karis cat.
f. Buster
Buster
er
is
Kari
Kari
sin
re.poss
katt,
cat
som
that
forresten
by.the.way
sit
sit.pres
der
there
borte.
away
Buster is Karis cat, who by the way is sitting over there.
It would however be possible to argue that a nominal phrase with a prenominal
possessor does not have a D-projection when it is a predicate, and that the pos-
sessor is sitting in a possessor-related projection which has a D-projection over it
only when the whole possessed phrase is referential. In fact, this is what Zamparelli
(2000) proposes. He further claims that when the possessor is followed by a nu-
meral, the numeral occupies the position that would otherwise host the possessor.
The projection of a higher layer is then necessary to make room for the possessor,
and since this higher layer is the one connected to referentiality, the result is that
the nominal phrase can no longer be a predicate. In support of his claim he points
to the following contrast (Zamparelli 2000: 136137):
(33) a. These are Harolds tools, and those, too, are Harolds tools.
b. *These are Harolds four tools, and those, too, are Harolds four tools.
As Zamparelli sees it, the phrase Harolds tools in (33a) is a predicate, since it can
be applied to two different sets of objects (a view also held by Holmberg 1993).
The phrase Harolds four tools in (33b) is however referential, and because of
this, it cannot be applied to more than one set at a time. And as I just have ex-
plained, Zamparelli takes the numeral to be responsible for the referentiality of
the latter phrase.
However, the (purported) ungrammaticality of (33b) can only be taken as an
indication that Harolds four tools is not a predicate that can be true of more than
one subject at a time. It does not followthat the phrase cannot be a predicate at all.
We need other tests to nd this out. One such test is embedding under consider,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.18 (1082-1147)
:i Marit Julien
which is shown in (34a). Here it turns out that Harolds four tools can indeed be a
predicate. If the example is felt to be a little awkward, it probably has to do with
the discourse properties of the constituents, since it gets better if the possessor
is emphasised, i.e. focused, so that the content of the numeral is treated as given
information. Moreover, in (34b) we have a perfectly acceptable nominal predicate,
which includes a possessor followed by a numeral. Hence, there seems to be no
truth to the claim that nominal phrases of this form cannot be predicates.
(34) a.
(#)
I consider these Harolds four tools.
b. I consider these Harolds two best books.
If we nowturn to a Scandinavian prenominal possessor doubling construction
with a numeral, for example Harold sine to beste bker Harolds two best books,
we see in (35) that it fails Zamparellis coordination test.
(35)
#
Dette
this
er
be.pres
Harold
Harold
sine
re.poss.pl
to
two
best-e
best-pl
bk-er,
book-pl
og
and
de
they
der
there
er
be.pres
Harold
Harold
sine
re.poss.pl
to
two
beste
best-pl
bker
book-pl
This is Harolds two best books, and this is Harolds two best books.
Nevertheless, that very same phrase may well be a predicate, as shown in (36ad),
in addition to being referential, as in (36e). Hence, the reason why (35) is not well
formed is again that the predicate cannot be felicitously applied to more than one
subject, in this case one pair of books, at a time.
(36) a. Dette
this
er
is
Harold
Harold
sine
re.poss.pl
to
two
beste
best
bker.
books
This is Harolds two best books.
b. Eg
I
anser
consider
desse
these
som
as
Harold
Harold
sine
re.poss.pl
to
two
beste
best
bker.
books
I consider these Harolds two best books.
c. Harold
Harold
sine
re.poss.pl
to
two
beste
best
bker
books
er
is
dette
this
ikkje.
not
Harolds two best books, this is not.
d. Det
it
dette
this
er,
is
er
is
Harold
Harold
sine
re.poss.pl
to
two
beste
best
bker.
books
What this is, is Harolds two best books.
e. Dette
this
er
is
Harold
Harold
sine
re.poss.pl
to
two
beste
best
bker,
books
som
that
eg
I
har
have
lesi
read
mange
many
gongar.
times
This is Harolds two best books, which I have read many times.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.19 (1147-1214)
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates :
The phrase under discussion here is quite big structurally, since it has room for a
numeral, a possessive marker plus a possessor above the adjective. It is arguably
a DP, with the possessor in Spec-DP, which is also the structure that Zamparelli
(2000) suggests for Harolds four tools. And note that it looks the same regardless of
which syntactic function it has. There is no indication that it contains less structure
when it is a predicate than it does when it is referential, unless we take the semantic
difference itself to be such an indication.
o. Strong quantiers, demonstratives, and personal pronouns
We will now turn to the highest projections that can be found in Scandinavian
nominal phrases. We have already seen, in (31), that universal quantiers and
demonstratives are located in high positions. More precisely, although a preposed
determiner is never required when a demonstrative is present, the determiner will
follow the demonstrative if the two co-occur. I show this in (37a). A universal
quantier will in its turn precede the demonstrative, as shown in (37b).
(37) a. desse
these
(dei)
def.pl
to
two
eldste
oldest
hus-a
house-def.pl
i
in
by-en
town-def
these (the) two oldest houses in town
b. all-e
all-pl
desse
these
fem
ve
gaml-e
old-pl
hest-a-ne
horse-pl-def
all these ve old horses
My conclusion is that the demonstrative heads a Dem projection that can be gen-
erated above DP (cf. Cinque 2000; Julien 2002, 2005), and that strong quantiers
are located in a Quantier Phrase on top of DemP (cf. Sigursson 1993; Giusti
1997; Vangsnes 2001; Julien 2002, 2005). The higher part of a maximally expanded
nominal phrase is then as shown in (38).
(38) [
QP
Q [
DemP
Dem DP ]]
Now strikingly, it is possible for a nominal phrase with a universal quantier fol-
lowed by a determiner in other words, a phrase of more than DP-size to pass
the predicate tests. The examples in (39) demonstrate this.
(39) a. Dette
this
er
is
all-e
all-pl
dei
def.pl
interessant-e
interesting-def
plate-ne
record-def.pl
mi-ne.
my.pl
This is all my interesting records.
b. Eg
I
anser
consider
dette
this
som
as
all-e
all-pl
dei
def.pl
interessant-e
interesting-def
plate-ne
record-def.pl
mi-ne.
my.pl
I consider this all my interesting records.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.20 (1214-1285)
:| Marit Julien
c. All-e
all-pl
dei
def.pl
interessant-e
interesting-def
plate-ne
record-def.pl
mi-ne
my.pl
er
is
dette
this
ikkje.
not
All my interesting records, this is not.
d. Det
it
dette
this
er,
is
er
is
all-e
all-pl
dei
def.pl
interessant-e
interesting-def
plate-ne
record-def.pl
mi-ne.
my.pl
What this is, is all my interesting records.
If these tests mean anything at all, we must conclude that a QP can in fact be a
predicate. It cannot then be true that nominal predicates are always smaller than
DPs. On the contrary, we see in (39) that the quantier has a DP in its complement,
since what follows the quantier inside the nominal phrase has a determiner in
initial position and could function as an argument on its own:
(40) Dei
def.pl
interessant-e
interesting-def
plate-ne
record-def.pl
mi-ne
my.pl
er
are
lagra
stored
p
at
loft-et.
attic-def
My interesting records are stored in the attic.
Hence, if the semantic difference between nominal arguments and nominal pred-
icates corresponds to a syntactic difference, that syntactic difference cannot be
stated as the presence versus the absence of a D-projection.
But as others have already noted (see e.g. Partee 1987; Adger & Ramchand
2003), nominal phrases containing demonstratives are not acceptable as predi-
cates. They are necessarily referential. This holds true also of Scandinavian:
(41) a. Dei
def.pl
som
that
skal
shall
opp
up
til
to
eksamen
exam
er
are
desse
these
student-a-ne.
student-pl-def
Those who will sit for the exam are these students.
b.
#
Eg
I
anser
consider
dei
def.pl
som
that
skal
shall
opp
up
til
to
eksamen
exam
som
as
desse
these
student-a-ne.
student-pl-def
I consider those who will sit for the exam as these students.
c.
#
Desse
these
student-a-ne
student-pl-def
er
are
dei
def.pl
som
that
skal
shall
opp
up
til
to
eksamen
exam
ikkje.
not
These students, those that will sit for the exam are not.
d.
#
Det
it
dei
def.pl
som
that
skal
shall
opp
up
til
to
eksamen
exam
er,
are
er
are
desse
these
student-a-ne.
student-pl-def
What those who will sit for the exam are, are these students.
e. Dei
def.pl
som
that
skal
shall
opp
up
til
to
eksamen
exam
er
are
desse
these
student-a-ne,
student-pl-def
som
that
forresten
by.the.way
planlegg
plan.pres
ein
a
fest
party
etterp.
afterwards
Those who will sit for the exam are these students, who by the way are
planning a party afterwards.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.21 (1285-1335)
Nominal arguments and nominal predicates :,
I would however suggest that this has nothing to do with a DemP being too big
structurally to be a predicate. It is a consequence of the deictic content of the
demonstrative, which makes it incompatible with an intensional interpretation.
When a demonstrative is used, the speaker will have a specic set of referents in
mind, and a purely intensional interpretation is not available.
Demonstratives contrast interestingly with personal pronouns, which are in
fact able to pass the predicate tests. Looking at a picture, for example, one could
felicitously utter (42a), and in that same context, the utterances in (42b), (42c),
and (42d) would also be acceptable.
(42) a. Dette
this
er
is
meg.
me
This is me.
b. Ho
she
anser
considers
dette
this
som
as
meg.
me
She considers this as me.
c. Meg
me
er
is
dette
this
ikkje.
not
Me, this is not.
d. Det
it
dette
this
er,
is
er
is
meg.
me
What this is, is me.
We can conclude that the pronoun meg me is a predicate in (42). What makes
this possible must be the fact that meg here means a representation of me rather
than me in person. Hence, meg can be used without any specic referent be-
ing picked out. In other words, personal pronouns can have a purely intensional
interpretation, and because of this, they can be predicates.
9
Let me hasten to add here that in a similar picture context, the example (12b),
which was marked as semantically deviant, will be quite appropriate:
(43) Eg
I
anser
consider
den
that
mann-en
man-def
som
as
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
(picture context)
I consider that man Christer Platzack.
. As Ora Matushansky has pointed out to me, personal pronouns can also be predicates in
coercion contexts like the following (my example):
(i) Den
that
hatt-en
hat-def
er
is
heilt
totally
deg!
you
That hat is totally you!
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.22 (1335-1393)
:o Marit Julien
That is, the name can take on a predicative reading if the context is right. This
demonstrates once again that the line between referential readings and predicative
readings is a very thin one.
. The Pred head
The preceding discussion has shown that it is very hard to nd any clear and sys-
tematic structural differences between nominal predicates and nominal arguments
in Scandinavian. I have mentioned, however, that there are indications that nomi-
nal predicates are complements of Pred heads. In nonnite contexts the Pred head
is spelled out, most often as somas, as in (44a) and in many of the examples shown
earlier, but other realisations are also possible, for example til to, shown in (44b),
which has an inchoative meaning element that is missing in som.
10
(44) a. Eg
I
anser
consider
Jenny
Jenny
som
as
vinnar-en.
winner-def
I consider Jenny the winner.
b. Vi
we
valde
chose
Lise
Lise
til
to
leiar.
leader
We chose/elected Lise as (our) leader.
In light of this, it is conceivable that there is a structural difference between nom-
inal predicate constructions and constructions with referential nominal phrases
after all, but one that has to do with the Pred head and not with the nominal
phrases themselves. It might be that referential nominals are not embedded un-
der Pred heads, or alternatively, that they are embedded under Pred heads of a
different type, as proposed by Adger & Ramchand (2003).
Let us therefore look once more at some of the copular constructions that we
have found to involve a referential postcopular phrase. I repeat three of them here
for convenience:
(45) Prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordisk
Nordic
er
is
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
The prefect of the Nordic languages department is Christer Platzack.
(46) Buster
Buster
er
is
gammel-katt-en
old-cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
:o. That is, the meaning difference between som and til parallels the meaning difference be-
tween be and become.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.23 (1393-1464)
(47) Dei
def.pl
som
that
skal
shall
opp
up
til
to
eksamen
exam
er
are
desse
these
student-a-ne.
student-pl-def
Those that will sit for the exam are these students.
Then we make these expressions nonnite by embedding them under a higher
verb. The higher verb cannot be of the consider type, requiring a predication as its
complement, but one that is able to embed an equative statement. In Norwegian,
oppfatte, which means understand, perceive, construe, is such a verb. As shown in
the examples below, the nonnite versions of the equative statements in (45)(47)
can all be embedded under oppfatte.
(48) Eg
I
oppfatta
perceived
prefekt-en
prefect-def
p
at
nordisk
Nordic
som
as
Christer
Christer
Platzack.
Platzack
I took it that the prefect of the Nordic languages department is/was Christer
Platzack.
(49) Ho
she
oppfatta
perceived
Buster
Buster
som
as
gammel-katt-en
old-cat-def
min.
my.masc.sg
She took it that Buster is/was my old cat.
(50) Eg
I
oppfatta
perceived
dei
def.pl
som
that
skal
shall
opp
up
til
to
eksamen
exam
som
as
desse
these
student-a-ne.
student-pl-def
I took it that those that will sit for the exam are these students.
Now note that in each of these examples the element som shows up between the
two nominal phrases in the complement of oppfatte. In other words, although nei-
ther of the nominal phrases embedded under oppfatte in (48)(50) are predicates,
an element identical to the realisation of the Pred head in nonnite predications
appears even here. This fact indicates that even equative statements involve a Pred
head, at least in Scandinavian. Since this Pred head is spelled out in the same
way as the Pred head in predications, we have no indication that the Pred head
in equative statements is of a different type than the Pred head in predications,
as proposed by Adger & Ramchand (2003). It seems instead that the only differ-
ence between equative statements and predications is the referentiality of the lower
nominal phrase.
8. Conclusion
I have tried to show in this paper that the semantic difference between predicative
nominal phrases on the one hand and referential nominal phrases on the other
hand does not necessarily correspond to a difference in syntactic structure.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.24 (1464-1522)
:8 Marit Julien
In Scandinavian, bare singular nominals, that is, nominal phrases consisting of
the noun itself and possibly one or more adjectives, but lacking the projections as-
sociated with quantication, can be arguments as well as predicates. These phrases
have been discussed earlier in the linguistic literature, and their ability to be argu-
ments should be well known, but I have nevertheless mentioned them here, since
they are part of the general picture that I want to present.
The question that needs to be asked is then how big a nominal predicate can
be structurally. It appears that at least in Scandinavian, nominal phrases of DP size
may well be predicates, and moreover, so can phrases that are even bigger than DP.
This is the conclusion I arrived at after using various tests that distinguish between
nominal predicates and referential nominal phrases in postcopular position.
Finally, I considered the possibility that there might be a syntactic difference
between constructions with predicative nominals and constructions with referen-
tial postcopular nominals after all, but one that is not found in the nominal phrases
themselves but instead involves the Pred head. However, in Scandinavian the Pred
head is realised in the same way in front of nominal predicates as in front of refer-
ential nominals, so that there is no obvious reason to say that there are two types
of Pred heads.
On the whole, at least in Scandinavian there seems to be no visible syntactic
property that can be connected to a structural contrast between predicative nom-
inals and referential nominals. If there is a structural difference at all between the
two types of nominals, it cannot be seen directly it can only be postulated on the
basis of the observable differences in syntactic behaviour. But then there is also the
possibility that the difference is purely semantic: if the lexical content of a nominal
phrase allows a purely intentional interpretation, that phrase can be a predicate,
but if its lexical content requires an extensional reading, the phrase is necessarily
referential.
This reasoning brings us back to Williams (1983) and Partee (1987), who ar-
gued that all nominal phrases can in principle be predicates, and that if a given
nominal phrase is not good as a predicate, it is a consequence of its semantics
(see also Doron 1988). I think we should consider more carefully whether these
proposals are not right after all.
References
Adger, D. & Ramchand, G. (2003). Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 325359.
Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical Categories. Cambridge: CUP.
Borthen, K. (2003). Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, NTNU.
Bowers, J. (1988). Extended X-bar theory, the ECP and the left branching condition. In H. Borer
(Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 7 (pp. 4662). Stanford CA: CSLI.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.25 (1522-1635)
Bowers, J. (1993a). The syntax and semantics of nominals. Proceedings of SALT, 3, 130.
Bowers, J. (1993b). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591656.
Cinque, G. (2000). On Greenbergs Universal 20 and the Semitic DP. University of Venice Working
Papers in Linguistics, 10(2), 4561.
Delsing, L.-O. (1993). The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages.
PhD dissertation, Lund University.
Delsing, L.-O. (1998). Possession in Germanic. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors,
Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase (pp. 87108). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Delsing, L.-O. (2003). Syntaktisk variation i skandinaviska nominalfraser. In . A. Vangsnes, A.
Holmberg, & L.-O. Delsing (Eds.), Dialektsyntaktiska studier av den nordiska nominalfrasen
(pp. 1164). Oslo: Novus.
Doron, E. (1988). The semantics of predicate nominals. Linguistics, 26, 281301.
Eide, K. M. & farli, T. A. (1999). The syntactic disguises of the predication operator. Studia
Linguistica, 53, 155181.
Eide, K. M. & farli, T. A. (2001). Semi-lexical heads in semantically charged syntax. In N.
Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Semi-lexical Categories (pp. 455473). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Fiva, T. (1987). Possessor Chains in Norwegian. Oslo: Novus.
Fodor, J. D. (1970). The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Giusti, G. (1997). The categorial status of determiners. In L. Haegeman, (Ed.), The New
Comparative Syntax (pp. 95123). London: Longman.
Heycock, C. & Kroch, A. (1998). Inversion and equation in copular sentences. In A. Alexiadou,
N. Fuhrhop, U. Kleinhenz, &P. Law(Eds.), Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 10 (pp. 7187). Berlin:
ZAS.
Holmberg, A. (1993). On the structure of predicate NP. Studia Linguistica, 47, 126138.
Hudson, W. (1989). Functional categories and the saturation of noun phrases. Proceedings of
NELS, 19, 207222.
Julien, M. (2002). Determiners and word order in Scandinavian DPs. Studia Linguistica, 56,
264314.
Julien, M. (2005). Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Krause, C. (1999). Two notes on prenominal possessors in German. MIT Working Papers in
Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and
Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609665.
Mandelbaum, D. (1994). Syntactic Conditions on Saturation. PhD disssertation, CUNY.
Nielsen, Bent Jul. (1986). Om pronominet sin i jysk. Danske Folkeml, 28, 41101.
Partee, B. H. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk,
D. de Jongh, &M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory
of Generalized Quantiers (pp. 115143). Dordrecht: Foris.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2001). On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations. PhD dissertation, McGill
University.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2002). Determiner Phrase in languages with and without determiners. Poster
presented at the Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 19: University of Troms, January
2002.
Sigursson, H. . (1993). The structure of the Icelandic NP. Studia Linguistica, 47, 177197.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 10:37 F: LA9704.tex / p.26 (1635-1655)
:|o Marit Julien
Taraldsen, K. T. (1990). D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian. In J. Mascar & M.
Nespor (Eds.), Grammar in Progress (pp. 419431). Dordrecht: Foris.
Torp, A. (1973). Om genitivomskrivinger og -s-genitiv i norsk. Maal og Minne, 1973, 124150.
Vangsnes, . A. (2001). On noun phrase architecture, referentiality, and article systems. Studia
Linguistica, 55, 249299.
Williams, E. (1983). Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 423446.
Zamparelli, R. (2000). Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York NY: Garland.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/08/2006; 10:14 F: LA97P2.tex / p.1 (45-72)
v.v1 ii
Studies on the (pro)nominal system
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.1 (46-125)
Pronominal noun phrases, number
specications, and null nouns
*
Dorian Roehrs
Indiana University, Bloomington
Standard assumptions claim that determiner concord is subject to morphological
agreement between the determiner and the head noun (Carstens 2000). Pronom-
inal determiners (Postal 1966) provide evidence that this assumption is both too
strong and too weak. Focusing on number, it is proposed that pronominal deter-
miners require not only morphological, but also semantic, agreement. Cases of
morphological dis-agreement are argued to involve the overt noun in a Specier
position and a null noun in the head position. As one consequence, the inventory
of null nouns is extended from countable and mass nouns (Panagiotidis 2002a)
to collectives, pluralia tantum, and proper names.
:. Introduction
According to standard assumptions (e.g., Carstens 2000), determiner concord in
the DP is a matter of morphological agreement such that a singular determiner
co-occurs with a singular noun and a plural determiner with a plural noun:
(1) a. {dieses
this(neut/sg)
/*diese}
/these(pl)
Schwein
pig
(German)
this pig
* Parts of this paper were presented at the 20th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop at
Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands, in June 2005. I thank the audience at that confer-
ence, two reviewers, my two editors, and Leslie Gabriel for questions and comments. Further-
more, I am grateful to Jan-Wouter Zwart, Olaf Koeneman, and Esther Ham for discussion of
and judgments on the Dutch examples, Anna McNay for judgments and recruiting further help
with British English, and to Marit Julien for pointing out Josefsson, to appear, and making the
paper available to me. I thank Ashley Farris for helping me proofread this paper. All oversights
are my own.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.2 (125-188)
:|| Dorian Roehrs
b. {diese
these(pl)
/*dieses}
/this(neut/sg)
Schweine
pigs
these pigs
At rst sight, the same seems to apply to pronominal DPs, understood here as
combinations of pronoun + noun:
(2) a. {du
you(inform/sg)
/*ihr}
/you(inform/pl)
Schwein
pig
you pig
b. {ihr
you(inform/pl)
/*du}
/you(inform/sg)
Schweine
pigs
you pigs
In fact, Sauerland & Elbourne (2002: 289291) maintain that determiner con-
cord is not subject to semantic agreement. This can be seen from combinations
with group nouns, as they point out, as well as from combinations with certain
pluralia tantum:
(3) a. {this / *these} set
b. {these / *this} pants
Among many others, Postal (1966) argues that pronouns are determiners. If this is
so, then we expect that pronominal determiners pattern not only as in (1) but also
as in (3). However, considering the counterpart of (3a) here as a rst illustration,
the opposite seems to hold for pronominal noun phrases:
1
(4) a. *du
you(inform/sg)
verdammtes
damn
Pack
gang
you darn gang
b. ihr
you(inform/pl)
verdammtes
damn
Pack
gang
you darn gang
To be clear, there are two things to note here: rst, despite morphological agree-
ment in number, the example in (4a) is ungrammatical; second, in (4b) there is
semantic agreement in number between the pronoun and the noun and morpho-
logical dis-agreement is tolerated. In other words, the traditional assumption of
morphological agreement between determiner and noun is both too weak and
:. The grammaticality of (4a) is indicated with regard to the collective noun denoting a multi-
member set. The example is grammatical when the pronoun addresses the group itself or when
the group has only one member. I postpone the discussionof the latter cases until Section 6. Note
at this point that English is more restrictive (for some discussion, see Note 12) and translations
are only approximations.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.3 (188-250)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :|,
too strong: it is too weak in that it would allow ungrammatical examples as in
(4a) (overgeneration) and it is too strong in that we would not expect gram-
matical cases as in (4b) (undergeneration). Now, if regular and pronominal
determiners are to be given a uniform account, their apparent differences need to
be addressed. Furthermore and more importantly, morphological concord within
noun phrases is a strong cross-linguistic generalization. If we are to keep this gen-
eralization, then our methodology must be to nd a different account for the cases
involving morphological dis-agreement in number as in (4b) (for the discussion
of mismatches in gender, see for instance Hellan 1986; Svenonius 1993; Josefsson
to appear).
Focusing on German and, to some extent, on Dutch, Icelandic, English, and
some other languages, I will argue that pronominal determiners are more restric-
tive than regular ones. While the latter only require morphological agreement,
as indicated by the subscript in (5a), the former require not only morphologi-
cal but also semantic agreement, as designated by the additional superscript g in
(5b). Assuming the head position N to be lled by the null noun e
N
, morpholog-
ically dis-agreeing nouns are argued to be in the Specier position of a separate
phrase (5c). For mnemonic purposes, I will call this phrase DisP standing for
Dis-agreement Phrase. Apparently, the option of taking DisP must be banned for
regular determiners (5d):
(5) a. [
DP
diese
[
NP
these
Schweine
]]
pigs
b. [
DP
ihr
g
[
NP
you(pl)
Schweine
g
]]
pigs
c. [
DP
ihr
g
[
DisP
you(pl)
Pack
g
[
NP
e
N
g
]]]
gang
d. *[
DP
diese
[
DisP
these
Pack
g
[
NP
e
N
g
]]]
gang
To anticipate, I will argue below that regular and pronominal determiners are
the same with regard to morphological agreement. They differ in that pronominal
determiners require semantically appropriate nominal predicates. Among others,
these predicates must be [individualizable]. In addition to their greater semantic
specications, pronominal determiners may not only select AgrPs (hosting adjec-
tives) and NP, but also the phrase DisP. In contrast, regular determiners can not
select DisP. This differing lexical feature will explain the contrast between (5c) and
(5d) above. I summarize the comparison in (6):
(6) diese ihr
Morphological agreement
Semantic agreement [individualizable]
Syntactic selection AgrP, NP AgrP, NP, DisP
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.4 (250-297)
:|o Dorian Roehrs
The conclusion that I will draw is that the different kinds of determiners are
not identical, as is well-known, but that regular determiners are less specied
pronominal determiners. I will argue that agreement in semantic number is not
brought about by feature checking but by the requirement that the denotations
of the relevant elements, dened as partial functions, be compatible. As a con-
sequence, semantic number is not part of syntax, which I take to be a welcome
result. More generally, the discussion will provide evidence that there are different
types of null nouns, that is, besides null countable and mass nouns (cf. Panagio-
tidis 2002a, b, 2003a, b), there are also null collective nouns, pluralia tantum, and
proper names.
The paper is organized as follows: rst, motivating the distinction between
morphological and semantic numbers, I group nouns and pronouns into different
types. Sections 3 and 4 then combine these different nouns and pronouns in var-
ious ways documenting in more detail the argument that traditional assumptions
are both too strong and too weak. In Sections 5 and 6, I turn to an account of the
morphological and semantic properties of these noun phrases. Section 7 discusses
some extensions and consequences of the proposal. After a brief illustration of
some further issues in Section 8, the discussion is summarized in the conclusion.
i. Morphological vs. semantic number
The traditional literature distinguishes between morphological and semantic
number (e.g., Quirk et al. 1985: 3167, 7589). The latter is often referred to as
mereology. Sauerland & Elbourne (2002: 289) discuss some differences between
these two specications (see also den Dikken 2001). Among others, they observe
that morphological number surfaces as plural morphology on the noun phrase
and can usually be made explicit through agreement with the verb (7ab); mereol-
ogy refers to the possibility of whether or not an entity is conceived of as consisting
of several members and can, in certain languages, be made visible by special
verbal inection (7c) (the datum in (7c) is fromSauerland & Elbourne 2002: 290):
(7) a. This set is odd.
b. These sets are odd.
c. This set are all odd. (British English)
With this in mind, we can set out four different kinds of nouns combining mor-
phological and semantic number in various ways:
(8) a. morphological number = semantic number
countables: Schwein pig, Eimer bucket, Bande gang [set]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.5 (297-363)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :|
b. morphological number < semantic number
collectives: Bande gang [members], Gesindel riff-raff
c. morphological number > semantic number
(certain) pluralia tantum: Hosen pants, scissors
d. transnumerals
mass nouns: Honig honey, Mist manure, Dreck dirt
Intuitively, morphological and semantic numbers coincide with countable nouns:
if the noun is in the singular, there will be one salient element in the discourse;
if it is in the plural, there will be several. Furthermore, while collective nouns are
usually singular in morphology but plural in semantics, pluralia tantum (of the
relevant type) are the reverse. Before moving on, I make the notion of semantic
number more concrete.
Interpreting predicates here as sets (but see below), I assume that semantic
number can be broken down into two types: (i) one group of predicates is marked
by spatial integrity, such that the noun denotes a set of elements that have different
dening subparts that, prototypically, must all be present (e.g., singular countable
nouns and certain pluralia tantum), and (ii) the other group of predicates has in-
ternal partitioning, such that the noun denotes a set of sets where each of these
subsets consists of discrete, identiable members of a similar kind (e.g., collective
and plural countable nouns). If the rst type of predicate is combined with the def-
inite determiner the, then the DP denotes a unique element in the discourse; if the
second type of predicate is combined with the denite determiner, then the DP de-
notes a unique set of elements in the discourse. I will call the rst type of predicate
semantically singular and the second type semantically plural. Finally, typical
mass nouns (under the substance reading) denote a homogenous and shapeless
amount of material, that is, stuff without spatial integrity or internal partitioning.
As such, they have no semantic number and are treated as transnumerals. Table 1
summarizes these combinations in different kinds of numbers (for the reason just
mentioned, mass nouns are not listed here):
Table 1. Combinations of morphological and semantic number in nouns
morphologically singular morphologically plural
semantically singular Schwein pig Hosen pants
semantically plural Bande gang Schweine pigs
A similar grouping can be established for second person pronouns.
2
I assume that
verbal inection indicates morphological number of the pronoun. Turning to the
i. Note that no direct parallelism between pronoun and noun is implied here. Rather, I take
pronouns to be pro-determiners and not pro-nouns (see below).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.6 (363-424)
:|8 Dorian Roehrs
relevant inventory, besides the pronouns of informal address such as singular du
you and plural ihr you, where morphological and semantic numbers coincide,
there are also pronouns of formal address. The latter are of particular interest as
morphological number is independent of the semantic reference: while both Ger-
man Sie and Dutch u may have singular and plural reference, Sie takes a verb in
the plural and u in the singular:
3
(9) a. Sie
you(form)
{alleine
alone
/alle}
/all
sind
are(3pl)
dafr
for.it
verantwortlich.
responsible
You alone/all are responsible for it.
b. U
you(form)
{alleen
alone
/
/
allen}
all
bent
are(2sg)
daarvoor
for.it
verantwoordelijk
responsible
(Dutch)
These combinations in morphological and semantic number are summarized in
Table 2:
Table 2. Combinations of morphological and semantic number in second person pro-
nouns
morphologically singular morphologically plural
semantically singular du / u (Dutch) Sie
semantically plural u (Dutch) ihr / Sie
It is interesting to note that, while there are personal pronouns with varying refer-
ence but constant morphological number (i.e., the pronouns of formal address),
the reverse does not seem to exist. In other words, there are no pronouns with
a specied value for semantic number that may vary in morphological number
(again, Dutch varies with regard to morphological person but not number, cf.
Note 3). The next two sections combine the different types of nouns with the
various pronouns with the intention of identifying restrictions.
. Pronominal noun phrases exhibit semantic agreement
In this section, I will be working toward the generalization that the combination
pronoun + noun is subject to agreement in semantic number. As an orga-
nizing principle, I consider the two combinations involving morphological dis-
agreement between the pronoun and the noun: plural pronoun + singular noun
and singular pronoun + plural noun. In the process, I point out grammatical
. Dutch also allows a verb in the third person singular (cf. (16) below), which, to some speakers,
sounds old-fashioned.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.7 (424-476)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :|
cases that are expected to be bad under traditional assumptions and ungram-
matical instances that should be ne. In other words, I show that traditional
assumptions are both too strong and too weak. Importantly, none of these cases
involves an intonational break between the pronoun and the noun or appositive
intonation. All examples here are from English, German, and Dutch (for other
languages, see below).
.: Morphological dis-agreement: Pronoun(pl) + noun(sg)
As already pointed out in the introduction, concord between nouns and regular
determiners is a matter of morphological, but not semantic, agreement:
(10) a. this set
b. *these set
However, the apparent opposite holds for pronominal determiners.
.:.: Countable nouns: Semantic agreement in the singular
As discussed above, German Sie you(form) takes a verb with plural inection,
independent of its singular or plural reference, and I assumed it to be morpho-
logically plural. Surprisingly under traditional assumptions, this pronoun can
combine with a singular noun under singular reference (sc indicates a stylistic
clash):
4
(11) a.
sc
Sie
you(form)
(idiotische
idiotic
Feldmaus)
eld.mouse
sind
are
ja schon
already
da!
here
You idiotic eld mouse are here already!
b.
sc
Sie
you(form)
verrotztes
snotty
Nichts
nothing
you snotty nothing
Furthermore, it is also surprising that despite morphological agreement, Sie with
singular reference cannot combine with a plural noun. In other words, although
there is morphological concord, the following example is ungrammatical under a
certain interpretation:
|. Cases of this kind were, to the best of my knowledge, rst noticed by Darski (1979: 202).
Some of the examples are taken fromthat paper. Notice also that, due to (mostly) identical verbal
inections, it is harder to identify relevant cases in some other Germanic languages. For instance,
the English non-argumental You idiot! may present a case of morphological dis-agreement only,
if we assume that the verb, and thus the pronoun, in you are {an idiot / idiots} is morphologically
plural in both cases.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.8 (476-533)
:,o Dorian Roehrs
(12) *Sie
you(form)
Schweine
pigs
you pigs
Crucially, what the grammatical cases have in common is that the pronoun must
agree semantically but not morphologically with the noun. Consider more cases
of this type.
.:.i Collective nouns: Semantic agreement in the plural
I assume that collective nouns consist of group nouns that can form the plural
(die Banden the gangs) and those that cannot (*die Pack(s/e/n) the gangs). Rel-
evant here and in contrast to countable nouns (cf. (2)), morphologically plural
pronouns can combine with morphologically singular nouns (note the idiomatic
use of Gemse in (13c)):
(13) a. Ihr
you(inform/pl)
(blde
stupid
Bande)
gang
seid
are
ja schon
already
da!
here
You stupid gang are here already!
b. Ihr
you(inform/pl)
(dummes
stupid
Pack)
gang
seid
are
ja schon
already
da!
here
You stupid gang are here already!
c. Ihr
you(inform/pl)
(junges
young
Gemse)
vegetable(s)
seid
are
ja schon
already
da!
here
You young folk are here already!
The same holds for Sie you(form) with plural reference:
(14) a.
sc
Sie
you(form)
blde
stupid
Bande
gang
(da
there
alle)
all
you stupid gang there all
As above, the pronoun exhibits semantic, but not morphological, agreement with
the noun. Unlike singular in Section 3.1.1, the semantic agreement here is with
regard to plural.
Importantly, morphologically singular pronouns are not possible with collec-
tive nouns denoting multi-member sets:
(15) a. *du
you(inform/sg)
blde
stupid
Bande
gang
you stupid gang
b. *du
you(inform/sg)
dummes
stupid
Pack
gang
you stupid gang
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.9 (533-596)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :,:
c. *du
you(inform/sg)
junges
young
Gemse
vegetable(s)
you young folk
Furthermore, as illustrated above, Dutch u takes a verb with singular inection,
independent of its reference. Thus, I took the pronoun to be morphologically
singular. Note that, although u you(form) with plural reference can, for some
Dutch speakers, be combined with these singular nouns, all speakers agree that
the pronoun cannot have singular reference:
(16) *U
you(form)
regering
government
is
is
daarvoor
for.it
verantwoordelijk.
responsible
(Dutch)
You government are responsible for it.
To summarize thus far, we have observed that dis-agreement in morphological,
but not in semantic, number is tolerated. I turn to the second main combination.
.i Morphological dis-agreement: pronoun(sg) + noun(pl)
Similar to the section above, regular determiners agree with the morphology on
the noun, independent of its semantics:
(17) a. *this pants
b. these pants
With one complication, we again nd the opposite state of affairs with pronominal
determiners.
.i.: Pluralia tantum: Semantic agreement in the singular
In order to construct a relevant example, the noun must fulll a number of con-
ditions: rst, while having singular reference, it must exhibit plural morphology;
second, it must take a verb in the plural with a regular overt or covert determiner.
English smarty pants in (18a) is a promising candidate in that the noun can only
refer to a single person but shows plural morphology. However, there is some
indication that it has been reanalyzed as morphologically singular: rst, the verb
shows singular inection (18b); second, pants in this idiomatic use can be plu-
ralized with concomitant plural verb inection (18cd) (the data are due to Rex
A. Sprouse):
(18) a. you smarty pants
b. Smarty pants {is / *are} coming.
c. you smarty pantses
d. Some smarty pantses are coming.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.10 (596-651)
:,i Dorian Roehrs
Considering the data in (18bd), you smarty pants is not a relevant example and so
far, I have not come across an appropriate plurale tantum that can co-occur with a
singular pronoun such as German du or Dutch u with singular reference.
5
We will
see below, however, that there is evidence for a null plurale tantum.
.i.i Countable nouns: Semantic agreement in the plural
As discussed above, I assume that Dutch u is morphologically singular. Concen-
trating on its plural reference, u can combine with a plural noun:
(19) a. U
you(form)
(taalkundigen)
linguists
bent
is
fantastisch.
wonderful
(Dutch)
You linguists are wonderful.
b. u
you(form)
{studenten
students
/
/
leraren
teachers
/
/
docenten}
lecturers
you students/teachers/lecturers
Again, as in the cases above, there is semantic agreement despite a morphological
mismatch. As expected by now, morphological agreement is not enough to license
these constructions: although speakers vary in their judgments from marginal to
ungrammatical when the pronoun with singular reference is combined with a
singular noun, they all agree that it cannot have plural reference in this case:
(20) *u
you(form)
{student
student
/
/
leraar
teacher
/
/
docent
lecturer
/
/
mazzelaar
lucky.person
/
/
geluksvogel}
lucky.person
you student/teacher/lecture/ lucky guy / lucky person
.i. Interim summary
Summarizing the individual cases, note that semantic agreement is a necessary
condition for licensing pronominal DPs but morphological agreement is not:
(21) Summary of Number Agreement
(i) Pronouns and nouns must agree in semantic number:
a. *Sie(sg) + countable noun in the plural
b. *du(sg) + collective nouns in the singular
c. *u(sg) + collective noun in the singular
d. *u(pl) + countable noun in the singular
(ii) Pronouns and nouns agree in morphological number with the exception
of:
a. Sie(pl) + countable noun in the singular
b. ihr(pl) + collective noun in the singular
,. This also means that we cannot test whether or not the combinations of ihr or Sie with plural
reference + plurale tantum are ungrammatical, as we would expect.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.11 (651-711)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :,
c. Sie(pl) + collective noun in the singular
d. u(sg) + countable noun in the plural
Comparing regular and pronominal determiners, this leads to a rst generaliza-
tion:
(22) Generalization #1
Regular determiners show morphological agreement and pronominal deter-
miners semantic agreement with nouns.
6
Before I turn to the proposal, consider mass nouns.
|. Pronominal noun phrases contain individualizable
and concrete nouns
Mass nouns on the substance reading are not possible unless they are licensed
by a classier, a semi-sufx involving a proper name, or agentive derivational
morphology. Compare (23a) to (23b):
7
(23) a. *{du
you(inform/sg)
/
/
Sie
you(form)
/
/
ihr}
you(inform/pl)
Mist
manure
you manure
o. The following exclamation is an apparent counterexample where a semantically singular
pronoun is combined with a semantically plural noun:
(i) Ach,
PRT,
du
you(inform/sg)
grne
green
Neune!
nine
Wow!
However, I believe this is not a true counterexample for two reasons: (i) unlike the regular noun
Neun nine, there is an additional ending (-e), and (ii) this example seems to be an idiom as du
you is not used to address someone.
. As a reviewer points out, this does not seem to be true for all mass nouns:
(i) Du
you
Dreck
dirt
you dirt
In certain respects, this state of affairs is similar to English:
(ii) a. you *(sweet bit of) honey
b. you (piece of) slime
For present purposes, I will concentrate on the cases that are ungrammatical.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.12 (711-779)
:,| Dorian Roehrs
b. du
you(inform/sg)
{*(Haufen)
(heap of)
Schleim
slime
/
/
Schleimbert
Slimebert
/
/
Schleimer}
slimer
you piece of slime/slime bucket/slime
Recalling that mass nouns have no spatial integrity or inner partitioning, we con-
clude that the nouns in the pronominal DPs must be individualizable.
Abstract mass nouns do not combine with second person pronouns either
(24a). However, the examples improve if made individualizable as well as more
concrete (24b):
(24) a. *{du
you(inform/sg)
/
/
Sie
you(form)
/
/
ihr}
you(inform/pl)
Liebe
love
you love
b. du
you(inform/sg)
Dummheit
stupidity
*(in Person)
personied
you stupidity personied
In other words, beside individualizable, the nouns must also be concrete.
Considering that mass nouns denote a homogenous and shapeless amount of
material, they have no semantic number and, as a consequence, do not fall un-
der the generalization in (22). For now, I state a second generalization, but I will
collapse the two below:
(25) Generalization #2
The noun must be individualizable and concrete.
Finally, mass nouns, especially edible and drinkable substances, are ambiguous
between a substance and an item interpretation (26) (for recent discussion of
mass/count coercion, see Wiese & Maling 2005). If this is true, then mass nouns
on the itemreading are expected to be possible. This expectation is borne out (27):
(26) a. Das
this
ist
is
{Ei
egg
/
/
Gold}.
gold
This is egg/gold.
b. Das
this
ist
is
ein
an
{Ei
egg
/
/
*Gold}.
gold
This is an egg/gold.
(27) a. Du
you(inform/sg)
Ei
egg
you egg
b. Du
you(inform/sg)
Gold*(stck)
gold.piece
you piece of gold
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.13 (779-857)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :,,
Note also that the noun does not have to be [+animate] but has to denote some
emotive property (cf. the exclamation of surprise Ach, du dickes Ei! Oh, you thick
egg or the disparaging vocative Eierkopf ! egg.head). Table 3 summarizes the
relevant judgments of the individual cases (rows two through four contain the
morphologically plural pronouns and the last three rows the morphologically sin-
gular ones; number indications in parentheses after the pronouns denote semantic
number; exclamation points indicate the cases surprising under the traditional
assumption of morphological agreement only; sc stands for stylistic clash):
Table 3. Summary of the judgments of the different combinations of pronoun and noun
singular plurale tantum plural collective mass
countable (Section 3.2.1) countable (Note 1) (Note 7)
Sie you(sg) sc (!) * (!) * *
ihr you(pl) *

(!) *
Sie you(pl) * sc sc (!) *
du you(sg)

* * (!) * (!)
u you(sg) * (!) * * (!) * (!)
u you(pl) * (!)

(!) * (!) * (!)
To reiterate, the traditional assumption of morphological agreement between de-
terminer and noun is both too weak and too strong: it is too weak in that it would
allow ungrammatical examples such as *du Bande you(sg) gang (overgenera-
tion); it is too strong in that we would not expect grammatical cases such as ihr
Bande you(pl) gang (undergeneration).
,. The proposal
One nding of the above discussion was that agreement with nouns is morpho-
logical with regular determiners and semantic with pronominal determiners. If we
make the strongest claim that determiners in the broad sense are to be a homoge-
nous class (cf. Postal 1966), then some way or another, the lexical specications
of regular determiners need to contain some statement with regard to semantic
number and pronominal ones with regard to morphological number. Further-
more, in order to keep the overriding generalization of determiner concord inside
the DP, our methodology must be to nd a different account for the exceptional,
morphologically dis-agreeing nouns.
In its simplest form, the main proposal is that pronominal determiners are
more restrictive, that is, more specied, than regular determiners: the former re-
quire not only morphological, but also semantic, agreement with the head noun.
In order to explain this difference, we will proceed in a stepwise fashion. Starting
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.14 (857-898)
:,o Dorian Roehrs
with the exceptional cases, I will propose that the morphologically dis-agreeing
nominal is in a Specier position and that the head of the matrix DP containing
that Specier is lled by a null noun (Section 5.1). Given two independent noun
phrases, there are two concord domains and the dis-agreement is only apparent.
After discussing some potential alternatives (Section 5.2), I propose that semantic
dis-agreement between the two nominals is ruled out by Predicate Modication
(Section 5.3). This operation introduces a form of conjunction between the nom-
inal in the Specier and the null noun, guaranteeing their semantic compatibility.
Next, employing feature checking and partial functions, Section 6 explains how
morphological and semantic agreement between the pronoun and the head noun
is brought about. After extending the discussion in Section 7, some remaining
issues are taken up in Section 8.
,.: Accounting for morphological dis-agreement
If pronominal determiners agree in both morphological and semantic num-
ber with the head noun, then grammatical instances of (morphological) dis-
agreement (cf. (21ii)) require a different account. Two syntactic solutions present
themselves: (i) the exceptional nouns are located in a Specier position, or (ii)
they are right-adjoined.
,.:.: Exceptions as Specier
The following structural analysis is inspired by Giusti (2002: 80), who allows dis-
agreement in gender with an element in a Specier position:
(28) a. la
the
mia
my(fem)
amica
friend(fem)
medico
doctor(masc)
(Italian)
my doctor friend
b. [
DP
la mia [ amica
i
[ medico [
NP
t
i
]]]]
Similar to Giusti, I propose that the noun and its adjectival modier are in a Spec-
ier position. To be concrete, I assume that this position is Spec,DisP, Dis being a
mnemonic for dis-agreement. Furthermore, I assume with Grimshaw (1991) that
all noun phrases, including pronominal ones, have a noun as the head of their
extended projection. This head can be overt, as in you linguists (e.g., Postal 1966;
Roehrs 2005 and references cited therein), or covert, as in [
DP
you [
NP
e
N
]] (for ex-
tensive discussion, see Panagiotidis 2002a, b, 2003a, b). Under these assumptions,
the example in (29a) can be analyzed as in (29b):
(29) a. ihr
you(inform/pl)
blde
stupid
Bande
gang
you stupid gang
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.15 (898-943)
b.
DP
D
ihr
DisP
[ ] blde Bande Dis
Dis XP
e
N
,.:.i Exceptions as Adjuncts
Alternatively, the second part of the noun phrase could be right-adjoined to a
lower phrase:
(30)
DP
D
ihr
XP
[ ] blde Bande XP
e
N
Note that both analyses (Specier vs. adjunct) base-generate two independent
noun phrases: a matrix, argumental DP and an embedded predicate noun phrase.
Given two nouns, there are two independent concord domains and morphological
dis-agreement is only apparent. Deciding between these two possibilities, it is im-
portant to note that there can only be one embedded nominal of this sort. In order
to rule out the occurrence of a second dis-agreeing noun phrase, I propose that the
pronoun may select the phrase DisP, whose Specier hosts this nominal (see also
Section 8; note that the adjunct analysis in (30) seems to be available for inde-
nite pronoun + modier constructions such as etwas Schnes something nice,
which allow several modiers; see Roehrs 2006). Arguing for two independent
noun phrases makes a prediction.
It is well-known that adjectives without preceding (overt) determiners must
have a strong ending in German: frische*(s) Gemse fresh vegetables, nette(*n)
Mdchen nice girls (for discussion, see Roehrs in progress, Chapter 4). Now, if
the dis-agreeing noun phrase is in a Specier, then the locally unpreceded ad-
jective contained in it should only have a strong ending. This is exactly what we
nd: Bhatt (1990: 154155) observes that adjectives in plural pronominal DPs can
usually have both a strong and a weak ending (31a); however, the cases involving
morphological dis-agreement only allow a strong adjectival ending (31b):
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.16 (943-992)
:,8 Dorian Roehrs
(31) a. ihr
you(nom)
{dumme/dummen}
stupid(strong/weak)
Idioten
idiots
you stupid idiots
b. ihr
you(nom)
{dummes/*dumme}
stupid(strong/weak)
Pack
gang
you stupid gang
To be clear, besides morphological dis-agreement in number, these cases are also
exceptional in that they only allowa strong ending on the adjective. Under the cur-
rent analysis, which involves two morphologically independent noun phrases, this
is expected.
8
Before I turn to an account of the semantic properties of the element
in Spec,DisP, it is insightful to consider briey some other potential analyses and
some reason to believe why these are probably incorrect.
,.i Alternative analyses
First, one could stick with the traditional assumption that all determiners agree
with their noun only morphologically. As above, we could analyze the grammatical
instances of (morphological) dis-agreement as involving Specier positions. How-
ever, under these assumptions, it would be unclear howto rule out ungrammatical,
but morphological agreeing, noun phrases, which should involve complementa-
tion (e.g., *Sie(sg) Schweine you pigs, *du Bande you gang). In other words,
ungrammatical examples would be predicted to be good and reference to semantic
agreement would be needed after all to rule these cases out.
Second, one could argue that pronominal determiners are fundamentally dif-
ferent from regular determiners in that they only require semantic agreement.
In this scenario, there would be no exceptions. However, this would allow mor-
phological dis-agreement between determiners and head nouns, and we would be
forced to give up the overriding generalization involving morphological concord
inside the DP. Note in this respect that pronouns do agree with their nouns overtly
in some languages (for Japanese, see Furuya 2004).
Third, one could claim that the verb does not agree with the pronoun mor-
phologically, as assumed so far, but semantically. Assuming that pronouns are a
type of noun and undergo N-to-Dmovement (e.g., Cardinaletti 1994; Rauh 2004),
one could hypothesize that agreement is similar to that triggered by certain group
nouns in some languages (cf. Sauerland & Elbourne 2002):
8. It is sometimes proposed that swear words do (optionally) not have phi-features (e.g., Doetjes
&Rooryck 2003: 290291). If this were so, then we could put the overt noun in the head position
and there would be no morphological dis-agreement. However, under these assumptions, it is
unclear how the agreement features of the adjective are specied.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.17 (992-1058)
(32) This set {is / are all} odd. (British English)
However, while semantic agreement in (32) is optional, the pronouns of for-
mal address (German Sie and Dutch u) always trigger certain verbal inection,
independent of their semantic reference. Besides raising doubts about the N-to-D
movement analysis, there is morphological agreement between the pronoun and
the verb in person (and gender in some languages) and the question would arise
why this is not so for number.
Finally, one could assume the presence of a null numeral classier in the con-
struction under discussion. In a different context, Wiese &Maling (2005: 27) argue
that German has (semantically present) null numeral classiers in Restaurant Talk.
One could suggest then that this is also the case here, as schematized in (33b):
(33) a. Zwei
two
(Glas)
glass
Wein,
wine
bitte.
please
Two wines, please.
b. pronoun + classier + noun
However, the following cases raise strong doubts about the general assumption
of a null classier: rst, classiers are not needed for countable nouns; in other
words, Sie Schwein you pig and u taalkundigen you linguists would still present
instances of morphological dis-agreement. Second, classiers occur with numer-
als, which, similarly to pronouns, have semantic number but, unlike them, must
have an overt classier (drei *(Haufen) Gesindel three heaps of riff-raff ). This
raises the question of why the classier must be overt with numerals but not with
pronouns. Third, assuming a null classier, all mass nouns should be grammatical,
contrary to the facts (du / Sie / ihr (*Mist) you manure; cf. Note 7). None of the
problems mentioned in this section arise if morphologically dis-agreeing nouns
are located in Spec,DisP, as proposed above. I turn to an account of the semantic
restrictions on the element in this Specier.
,. Accounting for the semantic properties of Spec,DisP
I noted above that the noun phrase in Spec,DisP is not a referring element (unique
individual/unique set of individuals), but a predicate that must agree in semantic
number and be individualizable and concrete. To make this part of the discus-
sion more concrete, Sie Nichtsnutz you good-for-nothing, under my assumptions,
is analyzed as [ Sie [ Nichtsnutz [ e
N
]]]. I follow Panagiotidis (2003a: 425) in that
e
N
is a trivial nominal predicate of type <e,t> that takes any individual in the
discourse and yields a true value for it. For expository purposes, however, I as-
sume with Rauh (2004) that e
N
is a semantically light noun denoting the property
PERSON. Consider the semantic calculation.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.18 (1058-1120)
:oo Dorian Roehrs
In the framework of Heim & Kratzer (1998), the relevant lexical items are
dened in the following, simplied way (in Section 6, determiners will be dened
as partial functions):
(34) [[Sie]] = f: f D
<e,t>
. the unique y (formally) addressed such that f(y) = 1.
[[Nichtsnutz]] = z: z D
<e>
. z is a good-for-nothing.
[[e
N
]] = w: w D
<e>
. w is a person.
Skipping some later steps, the semantic calculation proceeds as follows:
9
(35) [[Sie Nichtsnutz e
N
]] =
a. [[Sie]] ([[Nichtsnutz e
N
]]) =
b. [[Sie]] (v: v D
<e>
. [[Nichtsnutz]] (v) and [[e
N
]] (v) = 1) =
c. the unique y (formally) addressed such that y is a good-for-nothing and
y is a person
The crucial step is Predicate Modication in (35b), which introduces a form of
conjunction. Assuming that conjunction can only combine two elements that are
the same semantically, this semantic mechanism guarantees that the predicate in
Spec,DisP and the head noun e
N
are semantically the same while at the same time
allowing for morphological dis-agreement (Section 5.1). To be precise, this null
predicate noun is, under my assumption, a plurale tantum as it must be singular
semantically, agreeing with Nichtsnutz good-for-nothing in Spec,DisP, but plural
morphologically, agreeing with Sie you in D (for an inventory of null nouns, see
Section 7). I turn to (part of) the second generalization.
The relevance of the property [individualizable] was motivated by the fact
that second person pronouns cannot freely combine with mass nouns on the sub-
stance reading. Recall from above that nouns with semantic number have spatial
integrity or inner partitioning. Intuitively, what these types of nouns have in com-
mon is that they denote a set that consists of members that are discrete and can be
identied, that is, they are individualizable. We can now collapse the two gener-
alizations, saying that semantic number implies [individualizable] and vice versa
(for the feature concrete, see below):
(36) Generalization (revised)
While regular determiners show only morphological agreement with the
noun, pronominal determiners require both morphological and semantic
agreement where: semantic number [individualizable]
. I will concentrate on the restrictive reading of the nominal predicate here:
(i) Sie
you
Nichtsnutz
good-for-nothing
kommen
come
mit
along
und
and
Sie
you
Witzbold
joker
bleiben
stay
hier.
here
You good-for-nothing come along and you joker stay here.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.19 (1120-1172)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :o:
For pronominal DPs, this rules out mass nouns in the head position directly and
in Spec,DisP indirectly (by Predicate Modication with e
N
). So far, I have not ad-
dressed the question if agreement in morphological and semantic number might
be mediated by a functional phrase. Employing NumP, I now turn to agreement
between the (lower) part of the nominal and the pronoun.
o. Possible values on Num and DP-external special agreement
First I entertain the idea that both morphological and semantic number are part
of syntax. However, I will argue that semantic number can not only be eliminated
from the syntax but, in fact, must be. To this end, I discuss cases of special se-
mantic agreement between the DP and the verb. I conclude that it is not the overt
DP that agrees with the verb but a null pronoun. Having reduced DP-external se-
mantic to regular morphological agreement, I make semantic agreement within
the DP more precise by employing partial functions.
o.: Semantic number is not feature checking
Above, I argued that pronominal determiners and head nouns are subject to mor-
phological and semantic agreement. This raises the questionof howthis agreement
is brought about. In particular, making the widely held assumption of an interme-
diate Number Phrase (NumP), as rst postulated by Ritter (1991), I consider the
possibility that the head Nummay be marked not only for morphological, but also
for semantic, number. This is not a novel idea.
In order to account for the semantic agreement between the verb and certain
group nouns in British English (37a), Sauerland & Elbourne (2002: 291) pro-
pose that nouns have interpretable number and mereology features (37b) and the
functional node T has the uninterpretable counterparts:
(37) a. This set {is / are all} odd. (British English)
b. set: [number: sg; mereology: pl]
Glossing over the details of the account, they assume that (regular) determiners
only agree with (morphological) number of the noun while verbs, anaphors, and
(DP-external) pronouns may agree with either number or mereology of the noun.
If pronouns are determiners, we need to extend Sauerland & Elbournes analysis.
Employing NumP, I will esh out this broader account rst for DP-internal and
then DP-external agreement.
Developing ideas of Deltto & Schroten (1991), Panagiotidis (2002a: 58,
2003a: 421) proposes that Num may take on the following specications: Plural,
Singular, and Zero. Simplied, if Num
pl
combines with a noun, it brings about
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.20 (1172-1236)
:oi Dorian Roehrs
a plural countable noun; if Num
sg
combines with a noun, it derives a singular
countable noun; and if Num
combines with a noun, it results in a mass noun.

As a consequence, he argues that the categorization of nouns into countable and
mass type elements is a function of the specication on Num.
With the above discussion in mind, suppose that the head Num is freely spec-
ied in the Numeration with regard to both morphological and semantic number,
where the values of and may range independently over Plural (+pl), Singular
(pl), and Zero (0pl):
(38) Num [ morph; sem]
Nouns such as Ei egg are merged unspecied as in (39a) and second person pro-
nouns such as singular du and plural ihr can only occur in the contexts in (39b)
and (39c), respectively:
10
(39) a. Ei [ morph; sem] (where = )
b. du [ morph; sem] (where = = pl)
c. ihr [ morph; sem] (where = = +pl)
Assuming some checking/valuing mechanismbetweenNum, on the one hand, and
the determiner and the noun, on the other, the morphological value for and
are checked by and the semantic value for and by . As a consequence, = =
and = = . If morphological and semantic number coincide ( = on Num),
then , , , and all have the same value as and .
To illustrate, a second person pronoun and the noun Ei egg are spelled out as
follows: the specication Plural (+pl) will bring about ihr Eier you eggs, Singular
(pl) will result in du Ei you egg, and Zero (0pl) will give the noun Ei egg, the
substance, and a mass determiner. For the cases discussed so far, it seems that
feature checking/valuing can bring about the relevant agreement. In what follows,
I show that feature checking of semantic number can not only be eliminated but,
in fact, must be.
Above, I did not discuss the options involving the Zero (0pl) specication on
Num:
(40) a. Num [+pl morph; 0pl sem]
b. Num [pl morph; 0pl sem]
c. Num [0pl morph; +pl sem]
d. Num [0pl morph; pl sem]
To the extent that I am aware, these combinations are not instantiated. Suppose
then that a Zero specication for semantic number entails a Zero specication for
:o. For arguments that person is independent of number, see Panagiotidis (2002a: 2225).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.21 (1236-1295)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :o
morphological number and vice versa or, alternatively, that a non-Zero specica-
tion for one type of number entails a non-Zero specication for the other:
(41) a. 0pl morph 0pl sem
b. pl morph pl sem
Both entailments essentially state the same: a Zero specication for morphologi-
cal number can only be combined with a Zero specication for semantic number
and a non-Zero specication for morphological number can only combine with
a non-Zero specication for semantic number (where the latter does not exclude
different values for Singular and Plural, see below). While both rule out the four
non-instantiated options, the alternative entailment is unaffected. For instance,
(41b) does not rule out the combination [0pl morph; 0pl sem]. Thus, mass nouns
and mass (pronominal) determiners are not excluded but, due to feature check-
ing, they cannot combine with non-mass (pronominal) determiners or non-mass
nouns. However, unlike (41a), the entailment in (41b) has the advantage that we
can express in a direct way a connection between morphological number and the
two original generalizations collapsed at the end of Section 5.3, where pl sem
now equals semantic number:
(42) pl morph pl sem[individualizable]
Suppose that this entailment is part of Universal Grammar, perhaps parameter-
ized for classier languages.
11
If a learner has evidence for morphological number
or knows that a nominal predicate is [individualizable], then she can infer that
the predicate has semantic number. For the cases discussed above, this allows us
to eliminate semantic number from the syntax. Let us see if we can go further
than that.
Thus far, we have only looked at the cases where the value for pl coincided
for morphological and semantic number. Next, I turn to the remaining two op-
tions showing that feature checking of semantic number not only can but must be
eliminated from the system. In fact, DP-external agreement with the verb, which
motivated semantic number features in British English, provides an argument
against it if extended to pronominal DPs.
If pronominal determiners are syntactically similar to regular determiners,
as assumed all along, then we might expect that there may be cases of special
agreement la British English also with pronominal DPs. In order to test this, the
::. Most recently, Watanabe (2006) argues that the difference between classier languages like
Chinese and Japanese and non-classier languages like English and German lies in the mor-
phological realization of Num (his #). He argues that NumP is always present. If so, then (42)
may also hold in classier languages once the specication for morphological number has been
appropriately modied.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.22 (1295-1347)
:o| Dorian Roehrs
pronoun and the noun must be semantically compatible while, at the same time,
they must be different in some number specication. Recall now that in isolation,
Dutch u always takes a verb with singular inection, independent of its reference.
Although not all speakers allow (43a), one might expect that those who do also al-
lowplural semantic agreement triggeredby the noun. Furthermore, German Sie by
itself always triggers plural inection on the verb. With a morphologically singular
noun as part of the DP, one might expect singular inection on the verb triggered
by the morphology of the noun. Crucially, neither semantic nor morphological
agreement triggered by the noun is possible:
(43) a. U
you(form)
regering
government
{is/*zijn}
is/are
daarvoor
for.it
verantwoordelijk.
responsible
(Dutch)
You government are responsible for it.
b. Sie
you(form)
blde
stupid
Bande
gang
{sind/*ist}
are/is
dafr
for.it
verantwortlich.
responsible
You stupid gang are responsible for it.
As a point of departure, special morphological agreement as in (43b) is the easiest
to rule out: unlike in the Dutch example, I argued that the collective noun in Ger-
man is not in the head position but in Spec,DisP. In other words, the overt noun
in German is not the lexical head of the pronominal DP and is thus not expected
to take part in morphological concord or agreement relations of the matrix DP. I
turn to special semantic agreement.
I assume that, in contrast to the ungrammaticality of (37) in American En-
glish, the ungrammaticality of (43a) in Dutch is not just a language-specic feature
but is, to the extent that I am aware, a general property of languages. In other
words, making the strongest claim that the phenomenon in British English does
not exist with pronominal determiners, its absence calls for a principled account.
Our goal is to state the relevant properties of both regular and pronominal deter-
miners as similarly as possible (cf. Postal 1966), while still allowing DP-external
semantic agreement with regular but not pronominal determiners.
As discussed above, the pronouns of formal address in German and Dutch
can be both semantically singular and plural, but are morphologically specied:
plural in German and singular in Dutch. In other words, they can only occur in
the following contexts:
(44) a. Sie [+pl morph; sem]
b. u [pl morph; sem]
Furthermore, unlike nouns such as Ei egg, other nouns seem to be fully speci-
ed for number. For instance, pluralia tantum with singular meaning (e.g., Hosen
pants) and collectives that can only occur in the singular (e.g., Pack gang) have
opposite specications and can occur only in the following contexts:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.23 (1347-1456)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :o,
(45) a. plurale tantum [+pl morph; pl sem]
b. collective [pl morph; +pl sem]
If Num happens to have the same specications as in (45a), then this general
context illustrates German Sie under singular reference, that is, Sie takes a (null)
plurale tantum as its complement. The context in (45b) exemplies Dutch u under
plural reference, that is, u has a collective noun as a complement. With differ-
ing values for number, this is the case where special agreement could arise. In
order to nd an answer why it cannot with pronouns, we need to compare the
specications of pronominal determiners to those of regular ones:
(46) a. these [+pl morph; sem]
b. this [ morph; sem]
Note that, under these assumptions, regular determiners are very similar to pro-
nouns in the way their number specications are stated: on the one hand, ab-
stracting away from a person feature and a statement about a formal situation,
these is identical to Sie; on the other, this is almost the same as u with the differ-
ence that this can combine with mass nouns. Although this syntactic similarity is
a desideratum, as implied by Postal (1966), it raises the question as to how to rule
out special semantic agreement with pronominal DPs since both this and u are
unspecied for semantic number: in each case, the collective noun, mediated by
Num, could specify the semantic number on the determiner allowing optional
external agreement in the plural on the verb.
I will (gently) take the bull by the horns and tentatively claim that seman-
tic agreement in these cases is not brought about by feature checking with the
overt noun.
12
Rather, I propose that all number agreement of this kind is mor-
:i. There is another indication that feature checking with the noun is probably incorrect. It
is well-known that unlike German, English disallows singular pronominal DPs in argument
position (ia). Interestingly, although collective nouns are (marginally) allowed in British English
(ib), an issue originally brought to my attention by Erika Troseth (p.c.), number agreement
between the pronominal DP and the verb has to be triggered by the plural pronoun rather than
the morphologically singular noun (ic):
(i) a. *You idiot are driving me crazy.
b.
?
You committee are driving me crazy. (British English)
c. Us committee {??are / *am / *is} frustrated with the way things are going.
If true, then neither mereology nor number features on the noun may trigger DP-external agree-
ment directly. (There is a caveat here: (ib) presumably involves morphological dis-agreement,
cf. Note 4. If so, Sauerland & Elbourne could suggest that, similar to my proposal for German
(43b), the noun is in Spec,DisP and DP-external agreement would not be expected. However,
with Spec,DisP at least in principle available, their proposal is becoming more similar to the
present analysis.) Note in passing that the analysis of English is not entirely straightforward.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.24 (1456-1473)
:oo Dorian Roehrs
phological, that is, the checking/valuing of morpho-syntactic features is mediated
by Num.
13
To this end, I suggest that DP-external semantic agreement may, in
fact, be morphological agreement that involves a null matrix pronominal DP and
a semantically agreeing noun phrase in Spec,DisP:
14
(47) a. [
DP
pron [
DisP
this set [
NumP
Num [
NP
e
N
]]]]
b. (*)[
DP
pron [
DisP
u regering [
NumP
Num [
NP
e
N
]]]]
Importantly, for cases similar to (47a), there is evidence for overt pronouns in
Swedish (see the data in Josefsson, to appear) and Romanian (Giusti 2002: 76).
In order to derive the difference between the embedded regular DP in (47a),
which triggers apparent semantic agreement, and the embedded pronominal DP
in (47b), which does not, I suggest that pronominal DPs cannot be embedded
Besides the difference pointed out for (ia), English usually also requires an additional modier
with collective nouns (there seems to be more variation with regard to (iic) in British English;
the judgments are provided in their average):
(ii) a. you gang *(of killers)
b. you group *(of idiots)
c. us committee
??/
*(of teachers)
To speculate on (ii), English presumably has a different structural account than German. Due to
considerations of space, I will not discuss these cross-linguistic differences here.
:. A reviewer points out that this is consistent with the fact that in Distributive Morphology,
functional heads have only morphological features throughout the syntactic derivation.
:|. Den Dikken (2001) also argues for a DP containing a null pronoun (for more general dis-
cussion, see his paper). Unlike here, however, he tentatively proposes that the overt material is
in apposition (pp. 3839). Importantly, both analyses seem to face the problem that the overt
material can be indenite (den Dikken 2001: 29 Fn. 13):
(i) [ pron [ Any committee worth their salt ]] are going to look into that.
Sauerland &Elbourne (2002: 295 Fn. 13) point out that the presence of pro(n) cannot be justied
here since it is not referential and it cannot be bound or E-type. While I have no solution to this
problem myself, note that, in order to bring about person agreement, a pronominal element
must presumably also be present in Spanish, for both a denite and an indenite DP (the data
are from Lyons 1999: 144):
(ii) a. {Los
the
/
/
Algunos}
some
estudiantes
students
trabajamos
work(1pl)
mucho.
much
(Spanish)
We students / A number of students (including the speaker) work hard.
b. [
NP
pron [
DisP
los / algunos estudiantes [
NP
e
N
]]]
Although unclear at this point, the indenite cases in (i) and (ii) might be related. If so, then the
assumption of a null pronoun may be justied in (i) after all.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.25 (1473-1538)
in another pronominal DP. Below, I will try to connect this restrictiveness of
pronouns to the restrictions discussed in the rst part of this paper.
More generally, if this discussion is on the right track, then we have an argu-
ment that semantic agreement and morphological concord inside the DP should
not be accounted for by uniform feature checking, as in Sauerland & Elbourne
(2002), but in different ways. (That part of the account is semantico-conceptual
becomes clear when we consider the fact that the noun must be concrete, which
was part of the second generalization. This property is presumably not brought
about by feature checking.) In order to explain the higher degree of restrictive-
ness of pronominal determiners, both internal and external to the DP, I propose
that semantic number is part of the denotations of these determiners and nominal
predicates. In what follows, I briey sketch an account for both restrictions.
o.i Ruling out DP-internal semantic dis-agreement
I propose that DP-internal dis-agreement can be ruled out by the requirement that
the pronominal functor and its nominal argument be semantically compatible. To
make this idea concrete, I will formulate the denotations of some of the elements as
partial functions. To illustrate, as discussed above, semantically singular pronouns
cannot be combined with semantically plural nouns (48a). Assuming that the plu-
ral noun is derived by attaching a plural marker, here illustrated by the default -s,
to the noun, this example can potentially be analyzed in two ways: the pluralized
noun can be in the matrix DP (48b) or in Spec,DisP (48c), where the latter has a
null collective noun in NP and a null singular marker in NumP:
(48) a. *du
you(sg)
Nichtsnutz-e
good-for-nothing-s
b. [
DP
du [
NumP
-s [
NP
Nichtsnutz ]]]
c. [
DP
du [
DisP
[
NumP
-s Nichtsnutz ] Dis [
NumP
[
NP
e
N
]]]]
The representation in (48b) is ruled out by morphological (and semantic) dis-
agreement. The one in (48c), however, cannot be ruled out by recourse to a
morphological mismatch as the singular pronoun agrees with the singularized,
null collective noun. Rather, this analysis must be ruled out semantically.
Consider the following lexical entries for the singular pronoun (type <<e,t>,
e>), the plural marker -s (<<e,t>,<e,t>>), the nominal predicate Nichtsnutz
(<e,t>), and the null nominal predicate e
N
(<e,t>):
(49) [[du]] = f: f D
<e,t>
and there is exactly one x C such that f(x) = 1.
the unique y C (informally) addressed such that f(y) = 1,
where C is a contextually salient subset of D.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.26 (1538-1609)
:o8 Dorian Roehrs
[[-s]] = f: f D
<e,t>
[v: v D
<e>
and the number of x C is greater than
one such that f(x) = 1. f(v) = 1, where C is a contextually salient
subset of D].
[[Nichtsnutz]] = z: z D
<e>
. z is a good-for-nothing.
[[e
N
]] = w: w D
<e>
. w is a group.
Some remarks are in order here. Both the pronoun and -s are dened as partial
functions, that is, functions that have presuppositional conditions on their do-
main of application. In other words, they only apply to a subset of their potential
domain. If these conditions are not met, then this leads to presupposition failure
and the element receives no semantic value (for more details, see Heim & Kratzer
1998: 75). Unlike the pronoun, the number marker is a partial identity function,
that is, it maps its argument to itself provided that certain presuppositional condi-
tions are met. As can be checked in (49), these conditions check for the number of
elements in the contextually salient domain. This will be the key in the account to
follow. Let us rst look at the relevant tree structure in terms of the semantic types.
We start at the bottom. Putting aside the interaction between the null sin-
gular marker and the null collective noun (but see below), the semantic type of
e
N
is passed up to Dis. Functional Application applies to -s and the NP, con-
taining Nichtsnutz. The resulting [-s Nichtsnutz] combines with Dis by Predicate
Modication. Finally, DisP and du combine by Functional Application:
(50)
DP
<e>
du
<<e,t>,e>
DisP
<e,t>
Dis
<e,t>
Dis
NumP
<e,t>
NumP
<e,t>
-s
<<e,t>,<e,t>>
NP
Nichtsnutz
< > e,t
NP
e
N<e,t>
(Functional Application)
(Predicate Modification)
(Functional Application)
There is no general type mismatch and the expression is, in principle, inter-
pretable. This is a welcome result as we argued for the possibility of this type of
structure in (35), now updated as [
DP
Sie [
DisP
[
NumP
Nichtsnutz ] Dis [
NumP

e
N
]]] you good-for-nothing. Note, however, that the two partial functions have
contradictory presuppositional conditions: while the pronoun is only dened if
there is exactly one relevant element in the domain, the plural marker is only de-
ned if there is more than one. Applied to the same contextually salient domain,
this will lead to a necessary presupposition failure for one of the elements. Conse-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.27 (1609-1662)
quently, the example in (48a) has no semantic value.
15
In (50), I ignored the null
singular marker and the null collective noun. I now turn to the discussion of an
overt counterpart.
So far, we have focused on cases where a semantically singular pronoun cannot
combine with a semantically plural noun. However, as briey mentioned in Note
1, singular pronouns can take plural nouns under certain conditions, namely if the
pronoun refers to the group itself (collective reading), as in (51a), or the group
has only one member (distributive reading), as in (51b):
16
(51) a. Du
you
blde
stupid
Regierung!
government
you stupid government
b. u
you
nmansregering
one.man.s.government
(Dutch)
you one-man government
To be clear, these cases involve neither morphological nor semantic dis-agreement.
The question arises as to how to account for the different interpretations. On my
assumptions, these data have the pronoun in DP, a null singular marker in NumP,
and the noun in NP:
(52) [
DP
pron [
NumP
[
NP
collective noun ]]]
Without going into too much detail, I assume that the denotation of collective
nouns is dened in such a way that the relevant (sub)sets must typically have sev-
eral members but may, in the marked case, have just one member. The partial
identity function of the singular marker delimits the collective predicate to one rel-
evant set in the discourse (there is, in principle, no restriction on the number of the
members in this set). Now, if the pronoun addresses the set itself, the collective
interpretation is brought about, independent of whether or not the set has one or
more members. If the pronoun addresses the members of the set, this set can only
have one member as the pronoun and the collective noun must be semantically
compatible, as discussed above. In this scenario, the distributive reading results.
:,. As pointed out by Heim & Kratzer (1998: 8182), a presuppositional account raises in-
teresting issues. Note in this respect that number mismatches with countable nouns are not
strictly impossible. For instance, the grammaticality status of *ihr Nichtsnutz you(pl) good-
for-nothing improves if we imagine an alien with one body but several heads. In this scenario,
addressing the individual heads, we could refer to the entire being. If so, the acceptablility of
these cases seems to have to do with physical facts rather than with mismatches of the semantic
types in the tree representation. This might be taken as an indication that the presuppositional
account is on the right track. (Cf. Heim & Kratzer 1998: 244245, who dene partial identity
functions of type <e,e> for pronouns.)
:o. I thank the two reviewers for discussion and examples.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.28 (1662-1713)
:o Dorian Roehrs
Finally, as illustrated above, regular determiners do not exhibit these kinds
of restrictions. As just discussed, the number of entities is delimited by the par-
tial identity function of the corresponding number marker. However, unlike the
pronoun, the regular determiner is dened as a partial function that requires the
general supremum, the largest relevant quantity, be picked out in the domain.
In other words, denite determiners are totality extractors that work equally
for singular count, plural count, or mass nouns (cf. Sharvy 1980). In the latter
sense, regular determiners are less specied than pronominal ones, which pick
out either singleton or multi-member totalities.
o. Ruling out DP-external semantic dis-agreement
DP-external semantic agreement with a verb is ruled out by the semantic incom-
patibility of the null pronoun in D and the overt pronoun in Spec,DisP in (47b),
repeated here in simplied form as (53):
(53) (*)[
DP
pron [
DisP
u regering [
NP
e
N
]]]
I will assume here that the null pronoun picks out a different set of people
than the second person pronoun. If this is so, then these are two different, non-
intersecting sets within one referring DP. I assume that this leads to semantic
incompatibility.
To sum up, I proposed that morphological number is part of syntax. Imple-
mented by checking/valuing features, Num mediates concord inside the DP and a
verb may agree with a possible null pronoun. In contrast, semantic number is part
of semantics, instantiated here by dening the relevant denotation as partial func-
tions. I conclude that morphological and semantic numbers are to be dissociated
from one another.
17
Let us cast our net wider.
:. In contrast to the semantic derivation proposed in the text, a reviewer makes the intriguing
suggestion that pronominal DPs, as in (ia), involve predication parallel to clauses, as in (ib).
Furthermore, s/he points out that, while the nominal example only allows singular reference of
the pronoun, the clausal datum allows both singular and plural reference:
(i) a. u
you
student
student
(Dutch)
you student
#you students
b. U
you
bent
are
student.
student
you are a student
you are students
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.29 (1713-1764)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications ::
. Pronouns of other morphological person and null nouns
Above, I proposed that pronouns and nouns agree morphologically and seman-
tically. This makes a number of predictions: (i) most pronouns have coinciding
number values. If these pronouns may, under certain conditions, take on a differ-
ent semantic reference, then these noun phrases should also allow a morpholog-
ically dis-agreeing, but semantically agreeing, noun in Spec,DisP. And (ii), if the
combination pronoun + noun apparently dis-agrees in semantic number, this
construction must have a different interpretation from that of a determiner and a
head noun. I consider each of these predictions in turn using pronouns of different
morphological person. At the end, I provide an inventory of null nouns.
.: Some non-canonical cases
In some non-canonical uses, pronouns have different referential properties. For
instance, plural pronouns may refer to a single person. This is not only possible
with second person royal you but also with rst person nursely we (Harley &Rit-
ter 2002: 507). As expected, while external agreement remains plural, the pronoun
can combine with a singular noun:
(54) a. Ihr
you
Nichtsnutz
good-for-nothing
knnt
can(2pl)
nicht
not
der
the
Knig
king
sein.
be
You good-for-nothing can not be the king.
b. Wie
how
fhlen
feel(1pl)
wir
we
Suffkopp
booze.head
uns
re.
denn
PRT
heute?
today
How are we lush feeling today?
These cases are similar to German Sie and nothing else needs to be said. I turn
to other non-canonical uses where a third person pronoun combines with an
overt noun.
It is well-known that a number of Scandinavian dialects allow a proper name
to be preceded by a pronoun, that is, a preproprial article (for discussion, see
Delsing 1993: 5455; Roehrs 2005). As pointed out by Josefsson (1999: 732, 740),
Icelandic pronouns and nouns agree morphologically, as shown in (55a). Interest-
ingly, this language also has male names that decline like weak feminine nouns. If
gender is similar to number in the relevant sense, then we also expect semantic,
but not morphological, agreement to hold. This is indeed so, as shown in (55b):
Similar facts hold in German. Considering the traditional assumption that declarative clauses
denote truth values (type <t>) and referential noun phrases individuals (type <e>), I argue
in work in progress that clausal predication of the type in (ib) should not be extended to the
nominal case in (ia). For a possible morphological reex of this difference, see Note 20 below.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.30 (1764-1827)
:i Dorian Roehrs
(55) a. hn
she
Anna
Anna
(Icelandic)
Anna
b. {hann
he
/
/
*hn}
she
Sturla
Sturla(fem)
Sturla
Besides morphological dis-agreement in gender with proper names, Old Icelandic
also seems to tolerate dis-agreement in morphological number. To set the stage,
German allows an optional expletive article with a singular proper name but not
with two coordinated ones. Compare (56a) and (56b). However, this is possible in
Old Icelandic with pronouns, as illustrated in (56c):
(56) a. (der)
the
Peter
Peter
Peter
b. *die
the(pl)
Peter
Peter
und
and
Martin
Martin
Peter and Martin
c. eir
they(masc/nom)
Gsli
Gsli(masc/nom)
ok
and
Vsteinn
Vsteinn(masc/nom)
Gsli and Vsteinn
Note that, while the two coordinated proper names agree with the pronoun se-
mantically, they do not agree with the pronoun morphologically in an obvious
and straightforward way.
I follow Panagiotidis work in that (morphological) gender is marked on the
head noun but spelled out on the pronoun. If this is so, then the noun phrase hann
Sturla Sturla must contain a null masculine head noun. As assumed above, the
dis-agreeing noun is in Spec,DisP. I assume the same for number dis-agreement
between eir and Gsli ok Vsteinn:
(57) a. [
DP
hann [
DisP
Sturla [
NP
e
N
]]]
b. [
DP
eir [
DisP
Gsli ok Vsteinn [
NP
e
N
]]]
Positing a null head noun in these cases, we must be careful not to allow a sub-
stantive reading of the pronoun in D as this would give rise to a non-existent
adjunction interpretation (i.e., he, Sturla). I propose that these null nouns are
null proper names, that is, covert equivalents of nouns such as Peter and Cubs
in the Cubs. These null proper names semantically agree with the overt material in
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.31 (1827-1879)
Pronominal noun phrases and number specications :
Spec,DisP and morphologically with the expletive pronoun in D.
18
Finally, I turn
to non-expletive uses of the pronoun in Old Icelandic.
Thus far, I have argued that the pronoun and the noun must agree not only
morphologically but also semantically. If this is true, then grammatical cases in-
volving apparent semantic dis-agreement must have a different interpretation.
Again, Old Icelandic seems to provide evidence for this: while the pronoun and the
noun in (58a) agree both morphologically and semantically, there is a mismatch
in both number and gender in (58b).
(58) a. eir
they(masc/nom)
brr
brother(masc/nom/pl)
the brothers
b. au
they(neut/nom)
Gsli
Gsli(masc/nom)
fara
go(pl)
Gsli and the other(s) travel
Importantly, the plural pronoun in the rst case has the interpretation of a def-
inite determiner but the one in the second case is usually translated as and the
other(s). I propose that the former involves complementation and the latter some
type of asyndetic co-ordination:
19
(59) a. [
DP
eir [
NP
brr ]]
b. [[
DP
au [
NP
e
N
]] [
DP
Gsli ]]
Let me take stock with regard to the different overt and covert nouns in the DP.
:8. Note that, although the semantic relation between the null proper name and the expletive
pronoun does not involve agreement of the type seen so far, it also does not involve semantic
dis-agreement.
:. The structure in (59b) raises the question as to how the surprising singular reference of the
plural pronoun, translated as and the other, can be derived. One may claim that this is due to
some non-canonical use similar to you and we as discussed in the text. However, if it turns out
that this is not tenable, one might propose that the coordination is actually inside Spec,DisP.
In order to avoid type mismatch between the proper name (<e>) and the other conjunct, this
element must presumably be a null pronominal DP (<e>):
(i) [
DP
au [
DisP
pron e
N
& Gsli [
NP
e
N
]]]
In order to derive both the singular and the plural interpretation, the null pronominal DP must
be either singular or plural in reference. If this is on the right track note the similarity of (i) to
(57b), then semantic agreement would also hold in this case and the translation of the pronoun
as and the other(s) is somewhat misleading.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.32 (1879-1977)
:| Dorian Roehrs
.i The inventory of null nouns
I have argued that morphological and semantic agreement in number have differ-
ent accounts. Simplied, I proposed that, while the pronoun and the null noun
e
N
agree morphologically (), the pronoun, the noun in Spec,DisP, and e
N
must
agree in semantic number (g):
(60) [
DP
ihr
g
[
DisP
you(pl)
Pack
g
[
NP
e
N
g
]]]
gang
We have also seen that Spec,DisP may contain quite different types of overt nouns
(column two in Table 4 below). If the noun in Spec,DisP and e
N
in matrix com-
plement position agree semantically and the pronoun and e
N
agree semantically
and morphologically, then we have evidence for different types of e
N
: besides null
countable nouns in the singular and plural (Panagiotidis 2002a, b, 2003a, b), there
are also null pluralia tantum, collectives and singular and plural proper names
(column three in Table 4 below; recall that we did not nd a relevant overt plurale
tantum, the case shown in row ve):
Table 4. Inventory of the different types of null predicate nouns
D overt Spec,DisP null N
Sie(sg), wir(sg) singular countable noun plurale tantum
ihr, Sie(pl) (singular) collective noun plural countable
u(pl) plural countable noun (singular) collective
du, u(sg) plurale tantum singular countable
hann feminine proper name singular proper name
eir two conjoined proper names plural proper name
Note that in the context of our discussion, we have not come across any evidence
for null mass nouns (but see Panagiotidis 2002a: 57). This is due to the fact that
mass nouns are not [individualizable]. Furthermore, if semantic agreement be-
tween the nouns in Spec,DisP and e
N
under N is a necessary condition, then there
cannot be combinations of a singular countable noun with a plural countable
noun or a (multi-member) collective noun with a (one-member) plurale tan-
tum.
20
Finally, it is oftenassumed that covert elements have overt manifestations or
counterparts. With the exception of relevant overt pluralia tantum, pronouns can
io. This restricted semantic combinatoriability manifests itself slightly differently in the clause.
Similar to nominals, semantically similar predicates can also be combined:
(i) a. They are nice guys and a good band.
b. We are a good team but also good individual workers.
However, different countable nouns can also be (marginally) coordinated:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.33 (1977-2019)
indeed be combined with overt countable and collective nouns as well as proper
names, as documented above. In other words, overt and covert nouns are parallel
in the relevant sense and I argue that, in the cases where the pronoun seems to be
intransitive, it is in fact a transitive determiner co-occurring with e
N
under N.
8. Further issues
In this section, I discuss two remaining issues.
8.: Semantic agreement is not a sufcient condition
Although a necessary condition, semantic agreement is not sufcient to license
these pronominal DPs in German. Note in this respect that the examples in
(61ab) add other cases to the well-known type of data in (61c), where only an
emotive/affected noun is grammatical:
(61) a. ihr
you(inform/pl)
{Bande/
gang/
??
Gruppe}
group
you gang/group
b. Wie
how
fhlen
feel
wir
we
{Suffkopp/
booze.head/
?(?)
Kranker }
sick(masc/sg)
uns
re.
denn
prt
heute?
today
How are we lush / sick one feeling today?
c. du
you(inform/sg)
{Idiot/
idiot/
??
Linguist}
linguist
you idiot/linguist
For constructions such as in (61c), Rauh (2004) provides a pragmatic account
within Gricean conversational maxims. Abstracting away from the details, her
account can be extended to other cases not discussed by her: while the singular
non-emotive noun Linguist is still awkward in (62a) (although there is no stylistic
clash), the plural counterpart is better:
(ii) a. Sie
they
sind
are
beide
both
Arzt
doctor
und
and
Professor(
??
en).
professor(s)
They are both doctors and professors.
b. Sie
they
sind
are
beide
both
rzte
doctors
und
and
Professor
??
(en).
professors
This presumably has to do with the fact that a plural pronoun can be combined not only with a
plural, but also a bare singular, noun: Sie sind beide {rzte / Arzt} They both are doctors. This
is usually not possible in the pronominal DP: *ihr Arzt you(pl) doctor.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.34 (2019-2081)
:o Dorian Roehrs
(62) a. Sie
you(form)
{
sc
Idiot/
idiot/
??
Linguist}
linguist
you idiot/linguist
b.
(?)
Sie
you(form)
Linguisten
linguists
you linguists
Some speakers judge (62a) and (62b) comparatively worse but also perceive a
contrast between the two (something similar has been reported by my Dutch con-
sultants, see discussions surrounding (19) and (20)). Returning to (61ab), it is
unclear at this point if these cases underlie the same conditions as the one in (61c),
that is, if they improve under certain conditions, as extensively discussed by Rauh
(2004). If it turns out that they do, then Rauhs account does not cover these new
cases: for instance, the pronoun in (61a) has plural reference.
8.i Ruling out overgeneration due to DisP
The occurrence of DisP is subject to conditions. If Spec,DisP is lled, there cannot
be another adjectival modier in the matrix DP, either preceding the Specier (or
following it). Note here that this is not an isolated case. In Roehrs (2006), I argue
that indenite pronoun + modier constructions contain two null nouns where
only the lower one tolerates modiers (also Leu 2005). Compare (63a) to (63b).
The corresponding analyses are provided in (64):
(63) a. ihr
you(inform/pl)
(*dumme(n))
stupid(st/wk)
junges
young(st)
Gemse
vegetable(s)
you stupid young folks
b. jemand
somebody(masc)
(*Ser)
sweet(masc)
Nettes
nice(neut)
somebody nice
(64) a. [
DP
ihr [
AgrP
dumme(n) [
DisP
junges Gemse [
NP
e
N
]]]]
b. [
DP
jemand [
AgrP
Ser [
NP
e
N
]] [ Nettes e
N
]]
Although these cases are not identical, it is interesting to note that Spec,AgrP host-
ing the one adjective seems to be in complementary distribution with the phrase
containing the other. Having ruled out recursive dis-agreeing nouns by selectional
restrictions (see Section 5.1.2), I tentatively propose that pronominal determin-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.35 (2081-2127)
ers can only select one type of phrase containing adjectives.
21
The assumption of
selection also seems to be needed to rule out some other cases.
Second, if Spec,DisP is available, this raises the issue of why regular determin-
ers cannot have a morphologically dis-agreeing noun in that position. In other
words, considering the fact that regular determiners seemto be unspecied for se-
mantic number (cf. (65a) and (66a)) and bearing in mind that there are different
types of null nouns, why are the cases in the (b)- examples ungrammatical (see
also German in (56b))?
(65) a. [
DP
this [
NP
set / pig]]
b. *[
DP
this [
DisP
pants / pigs [
NP
e
N
]]]
(66) a. [
DP
these [
NP
pants / pigs ]]
b. *[
DP
these [
DisP
set / pig [
NP
e
N
]]]
Note rst that this does not seem to have anything to do with the licensing and
identication of null nouns, as these DPs are grammatical without a Specier: [
DP
this / these [
NP
e
N
]]. In fact, if Panagiotidis (2002a) is right, then licensing and
identication mechanisms do not exist. Furthermore, we have seen evidence that
third person pronouns in Icelandic can license such a Specier. As above, I suggest
that this restriction has to do with selectional properties. In other words, I assume
that regular, non-pronominal determiners cannot select DisP. I will leave open
here if this selection can be reduced to other properties of the extended projection
of the noun, as discussed in Panagiotidis (2002a). Note incidentally that assuming
right-adjunction of the dis-agreeing noun would not straightforwardly rule these
cases out as adjunction is typically somewhat less restricted and does not interfere
with selectional relations.
Third, with Spec,DisP available, one may wonder why noun phrases where
the pronoun and the noun fully agree cannot have the overt noun in this position:
(*) [
NP
du [
DisP
Schwein [
NP
e
N
]]] you pig. In other words, we need an account
that forces the projection of a matrix DP only. In a different context, Panagiotidis
(2003a: 417, 427428) argues that learners must have some evidence to assume
the presence of null elements. Note now that this type of evidence is not given
i:. With regard to certain analyses, a similar claim could also be made for some regular deter-
miners. For instance, Hendrick (1990: 254) proposes that adjectives in English modied by a
degree word move to a higher Specier position. However, Felber & Roehrs (2004) point out
that these constructions do not allow a second adjective:
(i) a. how tall a (*German) man
b. [
DP
[ how tall ]
i
a [ t
i
[
AgrP
German [
NP
man ]]]]
To the extent that this type of proposal is correct, non-pronominal determiners may also have
selectional restrictions making them, in turn, more similar to pronominal ones.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.36 (2127-2184)
:8 Dorian Roehrs
here as the pronoun and the noun do agree in all respects. Assuming some type
of economy of representation (e.g., the Minimal Structure Principle, see Bokovi c
1997: 2529, 3739), I suggest that the learners must project a less complex DP.
Finally, it is not clear why the noun in complement position cannot be overt
when Spec,DisP is lled: *ihr dumme Bande Idioten you stupid gang idiots. Al-
though I have no denite answer at this point, note that the account should
probably not be too deep if Giustis (2002) analysis of Italian la mia amica medico
my doctor friend is correct.
. Conclusion
Demonstrating that the traditional assumption of determiner concord is both too
weak and too strong, I proposed that pronominal determiners must agree with
their noun in both morphological and semantic number. I showed that the differ-
ent kinds of determiners are, unsurprisingly, not identical: while they are the same
with regard to morphological requirements, they differ in their semantic denota-
tions and in their selectional properties. In a sense, regular determiners are less
specied pronominal determiners:
(67) Determiner regular pronominal (non-mass)
Morphological agreement
Partial functions supremum one/multi-member supremum
Syntactic selection AgrP, NP AgrP, NP, DisP
The specications in (67) accounted for the different agreement phenomena in
and outside of the DP. A welcome result of the discussion was that agreement in
semantic number is not brought about by feature checking but by the requirement
that the relevant partial functions be compatible.
More generally, arguing that morphologically dis-agreeing nouns are in
Spec,DisP, the analysis provided more evidence for the existence of null nouns,
in particular, null collectives, pluralia tantum, and proper names. Furthermore, I
proposed that morphological and semantic numbers are to be dissociated from
one another, a conclusion that Rullmann (2004) seems to have reached for in-
transitive pronouns on independent grounds. While a number of question have
to remain open here, I hope that the present discussion will inspire further inves-
tigation of the syntax and semantics of pronominal DPs.
References
Bhatt, C. (1990). Die syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tbingen: Narr.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.37 (2184-2297)
Bokovi c, . (1997). The Syntax of Nonnite Complementation: An economy approach.
Cardinaletti, A. (1994). On the internal structure of pronominal DPs. The Linguistic Review, 11,
195219.
Carstens, V. (2000). Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2), 319355.
Darski, J. (1979). Die Adjektivdeklination im Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft, 4, 190205.
Deltto, D. &Schroten, J. (1991). Bare plurals and the number afx in DP. Probus, 3(2), 155185.
Delsing, L.-O. (1993). The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages:
A Comparative Study. PhD dissertation, University of Lund.
Dikken, M. den (2001). Pluringulars, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review,
18, 1941.
Doetjes, J. & Rooryck, J. (2003). Generalizing over quantitative and qualitative constructions. In
M. Coene & Y. Dhulst (Eds.), From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun
phrases (pp. 277295). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Felber, S. & Roehrs, D. (2004). * So weird a bafing construction. Snippets, 8, 79.
Furuya, K. (2004). Us linguists. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 46, 227242.
Giusti, G. (2002). The functional structure of noun phrases. A bare phrase structure approach.
In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures
(pp. 5490). Oxford: OUP.
Grimshaw, J. (1991). Extended Projections. Ms, Brandeis University.
Harley, H. & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis.
Language, 78(3), 482526.
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden MA: Blackwell.
Hellan, L. (1986). The headedness of NPs in Norwegian. In P. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk
(Eds.), Features and Projections (pp. 89122). Dordrecht: Foris.
Hendrick, R. (1990). Operator movement within NP. In A. L. Halpern (Ed.), The Proceedings of
the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 249261).
Josefsson, G. (1999). On the semantics and syntax of Scandinavian pronouns and object shift.
In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 731757). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Josefsson, G. (to appear). Semantic and grammatical genders in Swedish independent but
interacting dimensions. Lingua.
Leu, T. (2005). Something invisible in English. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, 11(1), 143
155.
Lyons, C. (1999). Deniteness. Cambridge: CUP.
Panagiotidis, P. (2002a). Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns: Pronominality and licensing in
syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panagiotidis, P. (2002b). Pronominal nouns. In H. J. Simon & H. Wiese (Eds.), Pronouns
Grammar and Representation (pp. 183203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panagiotidis, P. (2003a). Empty nouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(2), 381432.
Panagiotidis, P. (2003b). One, empty nouns, and -assignment. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(2), 281
292
Postal, P. M. (1966). On the so-called pronouns in English. In F. Dinneen (Ed.), Nineteenth
Monograph on Language and Linguistics (pp. 177206). Washington DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language. New York NY: Longman.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/09/2006; 11:57 F: LA9705.tex / p.38 (2297-2351)
:8o Dorian Roehrs
Rauh, G. (2004). Warum Linguist in ich/du Linguist kein Schimpfwort sein mu. Linguistische
Berichte, 197, 77105.
Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew.
In S. D. Rothstein (Ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and licensing [Syntax and
Semantics 25] (pp. 3762). San Diego CA: Academic Press.
Roehrs, D. (2005). Pronouns are determiners after all. In M. den Dikken & C. Tortora (Eds.),
The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories (pp. 251285). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Roehrs, D. (2006). Something post-pre-nominal in German and beyond. Paper presented at the
21st Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Roehrs, D. (in progress). The morpho-syntax of the Germanic noun phrase: Determiners Move
into the determiner phrase. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Rullmann, H. (2004). First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry,
35(1), 159168.
Sauerland, U. &Elbourne, P. (2002). Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order.
Linguistic Inquiry, 33(2), 283319.
Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of denite descriptions. The Philosophical Review,
89(4), 607624.
Svenonius, P. (1993). Selection, adjunction, and concord in the DP. Studia Linguistica, 47(2),
198220.
Watanabe, A. (2006). Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classiers.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24(1), 241306.
Wiese, H. & Maling, J. (2005). Beers, kaf, and schnaps: Different grammatical options for
restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics,
17(1), 138.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.1 (47-126)
Toward a syntactic theory
of number neutralisation
The Dutch pronouns je you and ze them
*
Gertjan Postma
Meertens Institute, Amsterdam and Nijmegen University
Dutch has two weak pronouns je (you) and ze (she/they or her/them), which
show number neutralisation in function of the syntactic context. Je can be sin-
gular or plural only when it is bound, while ze is either singular or plural when
it is subject but not when it is object (in some dialects). This is accounted for by
Kaynes syntactic theory of number neutralisation: the plural reading, as well as
its syntactic sensitivity, comes about by an abstract distributor, DIST, which must
be bound. Extending Kaynes theory, it is proposed that DIST must be bound by
an argumental position (je) or by an non-argumental position (ze). The theory is
applied to two diachronic issues: 1. the transition of sg/pl Middle Dutch hem
(him/them) to sg Modern Dutch hem (him) and 2. the introduction of the
English pronoun they, which was needed because of loss of neutralisation in
Old-English hio (she/they).
:. Introduction
Language, and morphology in particular, can be studied in its syntagmatic and in
its paradigmatic aspects (Saussure 1910 [1993]). Ever since Baker (1985[1988]),
the syntagmatic aspects of morphology has been subject to reduction to syn-
tax proper. It raised the more general question whether syntax and morphology
represent distinct modules of grammar, as traditional grammarians assume, or
that syntax and (the syntagmatic part of) morphology share their basic formal
* I would like to thank the audience of the TIN-conference, Utrecht 2005 and the audience of
the Germanic Comparative Syntax Workshop, Tilburg 2005, and two anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments on a preliminary version of this paper.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.2 (126-178)
:8i Gertjan Postma
properties, such as hierarchical ordering, binary branching, anti-symmetry, etc. so
that there is no rm basis to hypothesize two distinct modules. The introduction
of functional projections has boosted the integration of morphology and syntax
further, especially after the work of Pollock (1989) and others, who show a sys-
tematic connection between inectional morphology and syntactic operations.
Later developments have put the connection between morphological features and
syntactic operations on a more abstract footing e.g. in Chomskys minimalism,
who introduces abstract formal features on morphemes as the trigger of syntactic
movements.
The paradigmatic aspect of morphology has resisted integration into syntax
much more. But also here, proposals can be reported that argue for a syntactic mo-
tivation for paradigmatic structure, e.g. patterns in defectiveness and allomorphy
(Postma 1993; Bobaljik 2004; Barbiers 2005). Kayne (2000) contains an intriguing
suggestion in the direction of a syntactic theory of paradigmatic feature neutral-
isation. In the present study we will apply these ideas to two weak pronouns in
Dutch and extend the theory slightly. It will provide us with the rst contours of a
theory of feature neutralisation.
i. Number neutralisation in Dutch je you
The Dutch weak object pronoun, oblique pronoun, and possessive pronoun je
you is both singular and plural. In traditional terms: je exhibits number neu-
tralisation.
1
This is illustrated in (1)(3).
Position number
(1) a. Jij
you.sg
zag
saw
je
you
in
in
de
the
spiegel
mirror
object sg
you saw yourself in the mirror
b. Jullie
You.pl
zagen
saw.pl
je
you
in
in
de
the
spiegel
mirror
object pl
you saw yourselves in the mirror
(2) a. Jij
you.sg
kunt
can
dat
that
naast
next-to
je
you
neerzetten
down put
oblique sg
you can put that down next to you
b. Jullie
you.pl
kunnen
can.pl
dat
that
naast
next-to
je
you
neerzetten
down put
oblique pl
you can put that down next to you
:. In very special registers in Dutch, je displays forms of person neutralization. For a discussion,
cf. Bennis (2003).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.3 (178-240)
Syntactic theory of number neutralisation :8
(3) a. Jij
you.sg
kunt
can
je
your
boek
book
bij
in
het
the
examen
exam
gebruiken
use
poss sg
you can use your book at the exam
b. Jullie
You.pl
kunnen
can.pl
je
your
boeken
books
bij
in
het
the
examen
exam
gebruiken
use
poss pl
you can use your books in the exam
Signicantly, this property of je is dependent on the syntactic context: only if je is
a bound variable can it be both singular and plural. In pronominal use, only the
singular reading is retained.
(4) a. Ik
I
zag
saw
je
you
in
in
de
the
spiegel
mirror
sg/*pl
b. Ik
I
kan
can
dat
that
naast
next-to
je
you
neerzetten
down put
sg/*pl
c. Ik
I
kan
can
je
your
boek
book
bij
in
het
the
examen
exam
gebruiken
use
sg/*pl
To get a plural reading in (4ac), using the complex plural form jullie youguys is
the only option.
(5) a. Ik zag jul-lie in de spiegel
b. Ik kan dat naast jul-lie neerzetten
c. Ik kan jul-lie boek bij het examen gebruiken
The traditional way to handle neutralisation phenomena is to assume two dis-
tinct lexical forms je with the same phonological matrix, an anaphoric pronoun
je which is underspecied for number ([plural]), and a pronominal pronoun je
which is specied as singular ([plural]. We may call this the lexicalist approach.
Obviously, the lexical approach works in a technical sense. But it fails in providing
a restrictive theory of natural language. By storing the relevant information in the
lexicon, we tacitly assume that it is an arbitrary quirk of Dutch: the facts might
have been the other way around, with the pronominal use of je being underspec-
ied and the anaphoric use singular. Or even quirkier: the anaphoric use could
be plural only. However, there are various arguments against neutralisation being
subject to this type of arbitrariness: morphological, comparative, theoretical, and
diachronic. These support the idea that neutralisationis a dynamic process. In fact,
the pronoun is inherently singular but it is, under particular circumstances, used
as a plural. I will review these arguments in Section 2. In Section 3, I will present
and discuss a proposal by Kayne (2000) to handle these cases. In Section 4, I will
apply this theory to another case of number neutralisation in Dutch: the pronoun
ze. It will lead us to modify and extend the theory. In Section 5, I will discuss and
test the proposal. We will nish with some remaining problems and conclusions.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.4 (240-303)
:8| Gertjan Postma
. Arguments against the lexicalist approach
.: A morphological argument
In the previous paragraph I discussed a pronoun with number neutralisation. It
was suggested that the Dutch pronoun je is singular, while its plural use comes
about by syntactic means. The rst argument is morphological. The pronoun je
seems to be part of the singular paradigm. The singular paradigm has both heavy
and weak pronominals, as can be seen in (6). The plural paradigm, on the other
hand, has only strong forms, unless the pronoun can also be used as a singular.
(6) singular plural
1 mij me 1 ons
2 jou je 2 jullie
3 hem m
haar ze 3 hen/hun (ze)
het t
It seems that the plural use is paradigmatically parasitic on the singular, rather
than the other way around. This argument is in fact taken fromKayne (2000), who
developed the argument while discussing Italian. This brings in the comparative
argument.
.i A comparative argument
Kayne (2000) shows a similar state of affairs holds in the Romance languages. In
discussing the behaviour of se in Italian, French, and other Romance dialects, he
argues that se has the shape and behaviour of the singular paradigm. The pronoun
is inherently singular, but can be used in some contexts as a plural.
(7) singular plural
1. me 1. ci
2. te 2. vi
3. se 3. se
The singularity is not lifted but in contexts where se is seemingly plural, the context
distributes over the singular.
2
We come back to the details of the proposal in Section 3. What is important in
the present argument is that semantically plural morphemes can be morpholog-
i. As we will see later on, the plural use does not come about by deletion of the singular feature,
but by distributing over it syntactically, very much as inalienable constructions, exemplied in
(i), where the singular noun phrase een lange nek is distributed over, in this case by the plural
noun phrase die giraffen. Distributing over singular typically involves variable binding.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.5 (303-347)
Syntactic theory of number neutralisation :8,
ically singular. This is not limited to Dutch but is observed in various languages.
Plural morphemes can never be used as singulars. The fact that the languages un-
der consideration behave the same in taking the singular as the basis can be stated
in the lexicon but the lexicon cannot provide a principled account for it.
. Theoretical considerations
The neutralisation effects under discussion occur in bound contexts. This is not
an accident. According to the Theory of Reexivity (Reinhart & Reuland 1993),
anaphoric use of a pronoun implies that it is used as a dependent in a chain.
According to Reinhart en Reuland, the referent in the head of a chain must be
referential [+R], while pronouns in a dependent position should be referentially
defective [R]. They link the [R] feature to an under-specication for features,
particularly number (cf. Reuland 2000).
3
This shows a theoretical relation between
number neutralisation and the anaphoricity in the paradigm of (1)(3). A disad-
vantage of the framework is the stipulation of the relation. Though theoretically
plausible, it does not follow from basic principles nor does it provide us with a
mechanism.
.| Diachronic evidence
There is diachronic evidence that the link between anaphoric use and number
neutralisation is not accidental. Middle Dutch did not have a reexive pronoun. It
used the ordinary pronoun hem him in 3rd person reexive use. So the sentence
in (8) encodes a reexive context.
(8) Nu
Now
keert
turns
hem
himre
daer
there
toe
to
mijn
my
zin
mind
(Middle Dutch)
My mind turns itself to it
Importantly, the Middle Dutch pronoun hemcan also be used as a plural (them).
Hem displays number neutralisation. When the plural use of hem was lost (from
1400 onwards), it could not be used as a reexive anymore. A gap in the paradigm
was created, which was lled by Eastern forms, such as sick and sich. Using a cor-
(i) die
those
giraffen
girafs
hebben
have
een
a
lange
long
nek
neck
those girafs
x
[ x has a long neck]
. Another attested underspecication that causes anaphoricity is [oblique] in those languages
that have such a feature, such as Frisian. For a discussion, cf. Hoekstra (1994), Reuland (2000),
Postma (2006).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.6 (347-396)
:8o Gertjan Postma
pus of verdicts
4
in the province of Drenthe, Postma (2004) shows that the two
processes are correlated. Over a period of one century (roughly 14001500) the
two changes are proceed in tandem.
(9) a. Rise of 'zich' in 'zich ver meten / to commit oneselves'
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1400-27 1427-72 1472-1516
sick+sich
hem+om
b.
When sick/sich had completely taken over hems position as a reexive, hem could
only be used as a singular. This shows us two things. First, anaphoricity is a neces-
sary condition for number neutralisation.
5
Secondly, when number neutralisation
disappears, the pronoun retreats to its singular meaning. Apparently, the Old-
Germanic singular form hem/ihm had only temporarily been used as a plural. If
hem in Middle Dutch plural contexts were a true plural, one would expect vari-
ation in the outcome when the neutralisation was lifted. But in all dialects of
Dutch that underwent the change, the outcome was singular. Traditionally, one
would say that the singular is the unmarked form. Marked forms have morpho-
syntactic complexity (Kusters 2003). In the next section we will discuss a proposal
that implements this notion of complexity in a syntactic way.
|. The corpus consists of 5000 verdicts of almost every year, 225000 words in total.
,. In fact, it appears that number neutralization is a necessary and sufcient condition for
anaphoricity for 3rd person pronouns. According to many researchers only 3rd person pronouns
can be specied for number (Postal 1972; Polettta 2005 and many others).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.7 (396-444)
|. Kaynes syntactic theory of number neutralisation
It is useful to put the plural use of singular pronouns in the perspective of a pro-
posal made in Kayne (2000), who shows that Italian s is part of the singular
paradigm. Despite its inherent singularity, it can be used as a plural, cf. (10b).
(10) a. Il
the
ragazzo
boy
ha
has
parlato
spoken
di
about
s
himself
b.
?
I
the
ragazzi
boys
hanno
have
parlato
spoken
di
of
s
themselves
The plural reading is more marked than the singular reading. Kayne suggests that
s acquires plural readings by an abstract distributor, DIST.
(11) I ragazzi hanno parlato DIST di s
Potentially, the markedness of the plural construction can be accounted for by the
presence of DIST. By means of DIST, the subject distributes over the object in a
way oating quantiers do. For that reason, DIST must have a kind of anaphoric
relation with the subject.
6
Kayne mentions two additional arguments that a syn-
tactic object is the mediating factor. First, number neutralization is sensitive to the
syntactic conguration. This is explained by the fact that DIST occupies a syn-
tactic position, i.e. some congurations allow for insertion of a distributor while
other congurations do not. Prepositional constructions seem to provide a slot in
their speciers. Secondly, DIST has syntactic properties, such as the requirement
to be locally bound by a plural antecedent. In this way, the special behaviour of the
plural reading with respect to long-distance anaphora can be accounted for.
(12) a.
?
Il
the
ragazzo
boy
mi
has
ha
convinced
convinto
me
a
to
parlare
speak
di
about
s
himself
b. *I
the
ragazzi
boys
mi
have
hanno
convinced
convinto
me
a
to
parlare
speak
di
about
s
themselves
The ungrammaticality of (12b) follows from the fact that there is no possible slot
for DIST. The various possibilities drawn in (13) lead to violation of the locality
conditions.
(13) I ragazzi
i
mi
k
hanno (*DIST
i
) convinto a PRO
k
parlare (*DIST
i
) di s
i
The rst occurrence of DIST violates locality with respect to SE, the second oc-
currence violates locality between DIST and its antecedent. Kaynes theory can be
o. DIST can be compared with binominal each (Beghelli & Stowell 1997; Postma 2000), recip-
rocal each, which all involve two theta-positions and have A-bar and A anaphoric dependencies,
cf. Aoun (1985).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.8 (444-513)
:88 Gertjan Postma
considered as a syntagmatic account of morphological neutralisation, instead of
the traditional paradigmatic approach.
This theory is straightforwardly applicable to the Dutch data listed above. The
singular reading of je is well-formed, whether it is anaphoric or not. The plural
reading is only grammatical when je is anaphoric. By assumption, the plural read-
ing is established by a distributor. The anaphoricity of the plural reading derives
from the fact that DIST must be bound.
7
(14) a. Jullie
You.pl
zagen DIST
saw.pl
je
you
in
in
de
the
spiegel
mirror
you saw yourselves in the mirror
b. *Jan
John
zag DIST
saw
je
you.pl
in
in
de
the
spiegel
mirror
We conclude that the syntactic approach to number neutralisation has several ad-
vantages. It captures the fact that plural forms are more complex, it makes the
correct link between binding effects in the plural reading, in Italian s and in Dutch
je, and it claries the diachronic issue of Middle Dutch plural hem. A potential ob-
jection is that the precise conditions on DIST are distinct in the two languages.
According to Kayne (2000), DIST in Italian can be inserted before prepositions,
probably in the specier of PP, while we must allow Dutch DIST to occur more
freely as an adjunct. However, such differences are to be expected, as DIST is a
syntactic object and the languages under consideration are syntactically different.
In the optimal case, such differences will be derivable from independently estab-
lished properties of the languages, for instance, they could be linked to differences
in the distribution of other distributors such as EACH. Obviously this is a research
program that exceeds the scope of this paper. As a rst beginning, though, we
will develop in the next section one dimension of this complicated eld, where
we describe the behaviour of Dutch ze, a pronoun that is etymologically related to
Italian SE.
,. Number neutralisation in Dutch 3rd person pronouns
,.: Middle Dutch hem
Before we can understand the position of ze in Dutch, it is enlightening to re-
turn to the discussion of 3.4 on the Middle Dutch hem. As we have observed in
3.4, Middle Dutch hem displayed number neutralisation, and could therefore be
. In fact, the Dutch data are even nicer than those from Italian, since singular s in Italian is
anaphoric as well, which must be stated independently.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.9 (513-557)
used anaphorically. However, hem could be used as a plural in non-reexive con-
texts as well. If we assume that this reading comes about through mediation of
DIST, which is anaphoric, the question arises what the antecedent of DIST might
be in the pronominal reading of hem. It is, of course, unattractive to assume a
non-anaphoric DIST, since that would destroy the correlation between anaphora
and number neutralisation. A plausible solution is that DIST is always anaphoric
but that it can select an antecedent in an argument position as well as in a non-
argument position, e.g. referential features in Comp. Extending Rizzis criterial
approach to languages that have a grammaticalized topic structure, such as the
full V2 languages, we may assume that there are topic features in CP that induce
verb placement by some Topic criterion (Zwart 1993; Rizzi 2004). Let us assume
that such topic features are in C
. So, hem is anaphoric to the features in C, but is

not reexive, as there is no argumental co-indexation. We will denote this A-bar
distributor that has an A-bar dependency as DIST (DIST-bar).
8
We arrive at a
structure in (15) for non-reexive use of hem.
(15)
In this case, hem behaves as a kind of topic or discourse pronoun that picks up its
referent in its rst anteceding CP. We will postpone a discussion of the predictions
and the tests to Section 4.3. Let us now turn to the fact that Middle Dutch lost the
option of hem being in the scope of DIST or DIST. We then predict that there will
be three empty slots in the paradigm: 3rd sg and pl reexive, and 3rd plural in non-
reexive context. Hem recourses to its singular non-reexive reading. As we have
seen in Section 2.4 the empty slots in the reexive paradigm were lled through
borrowing of sick/sich. The lling of the empty slot in the plural paradigm was
more problematic. In the written standard language, the object pronouns hen/hun
them emerged but they are uncomfortable until the present-day and are virtually
absent from the spoken language (Uit den Boogaard 1975). Most of the time, a
discourse pronoun
9
is used suppletively: die them, which may remain in situ with
inanimate referents, but fronts with animates.
10
(16) a. Ik
I
heb
have
die
them
gezien
seen
(books / *
?
people)
b. Die
them
heb
have
ik
I
gezien
seen
(books / people
8. Why it is the case that 2nd person je takes DIST while 3rd person pronouns take DIST or
DIST and ze only takes DIST remains a stipulation that abides explanation.
. For properties of discourse pronouns, cf. Postma (1984), Reinhart (1983).
:o. The in situ use with animates is possible with a pejorative reading.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.10 (557-611)
:o Gertjan Postma
This deictic pronoun die has not yet developed into a true pronoun (this is what
happened with English them). Deictic pronouns move to COMP before or after
spell-out, but pronouns obtain their interpretation in situ. The difference between
personal pronouns and discourse pronouns can be traced by various tests, such
as coordination, reexivity, disjoint reference, oblique context test. For a more
extended discussion of the various tests, I refer to Postma (2004).
(17) a. Ik
I
zag
saw
jou
you
en
and
hen/*die
them
coordination test
b. Zij
They
zagen
saw
(?)
hunzelf/*diezelf
themselves
reexivisation test
c. Zij
They
zeiden
said
dat
that
ik
I
hen/*die moest helpen
must help them
disjoint reference
d. Zij
They
zorgden
took
voor
care
hen/*die
11
for them
oblique test
In oblique contexts, discourse pronouns have a special suppletive form, the so-
called pronominal adverbs,
12
R-pronouns in the generative literature (Van Riems-
dijk 1978). All these restrictions immediately followfromthe assumption that dis-
course pronouns move to CP at some point of the derivation. Under a movement
analysis, the ungrammaticalities in (17) are explained: the coordination constraint
is violated in (17a), the structure in (17b) is a case of strong cross-over, as is (17c).
The block on prepositional contexts (17d) follows fromthe absence of preposition
stranding in Dutch.
,.i Number neutralisation in Modern Dutch ze
,.i.: Ze as an object pronoun (them)
In this section we will discuss number neutralisation with the pronoun ze
her/them, as in (18).
(18) Ik
I
zag
saw
ze
her/them
There are two caveats to be made here. Although the singular use of ze is a fea-
ture of standard Dutch according to all descriptive grammars, the actual use is
very much limited to the South. In (19a), I give an impression of the area of the
actual neutralisation. It is an impression based on data found in the literature
(De Schutter 1987) and from informants. A second caveat is that not the entire
::. With very strong deictic focus the construction becomes ne. Perhaps a deictic focus feature
percolates to the PP and moves the PP at LF.
:i. The so-called voornaamwoordelijke bijwoorden (pronominal adverbs).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.11 (611-653)
Syntactic theory of number neutralisation ::
Dutch area allows for the prepositional use of ze. In (19b), the dots indicate the
area where prepositional use is attested. The map is created using data extracted
fromthe RND,
13
which were entered into the map-drawing programof the SAND
database.
14
(19) a.
b.
If we inspect the two maps, we conclude that the dialects that have neutralisation
(the South), do not allow for prepositional use. The reverse is not true, as there are
dialects in the Northeast that do not allow for either. In other words, there is an
implicational relation. It is rendered in (20) for further reference.
(20) A dialect has neutralisation in ze does not allow for [P ze]
A theory of neutralisation should provide an answer for why this is the case. It
must be noted that a block on the prepositional use of ze is unique in the Dutch
:. Series of Dutch Dialect Atlases, cf. RND in the references.
:|. Only those dialects are drawn whose geographical number in the RND coincided with
a number of the SAND atlas (cf. references). The statistics is in fact much better than the
map suggests.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.12 (653-698)
:i Gertjan Postma
language. No other pronoun in Dutch displays this curious behaviour.
15
Instead of
introducing an entirely new opposition between objective Case and oblique Case,
it is attractive to pursue a syntactic line.
As we have seen in Section 4.1, the slot of plural hem became available when
hemretreated to its singular base. The gap was partly lled by discourse pronouns,
but another new form was object ze. In most of the grammars, ze is treated as a
personal pronoun, but evidence for this is not very strong. Let us apply our tests of
Section 4.1. First, it cannot be used in co-ordinations (21), it cannot enter reex-
ivity (cf. (22)) not even in dialects that allow pronouns to do so, it displays disjoint
reference effects (see Section 4.3), and nally it does not occur in prepositional
contexts (23).
(21) a. Hij
he
zag
saw
een
a
foto
picture
van
of
jou
you
en
and
mezelf
myself
b. Hij
he
zag
saw
een
a
foto
picture
van
of
jou
you
en
and
*zezelf
her-self
(22) a.
?
Zij
They
zagen
saw
hunzelf
themself
b. *Zij
They
zagen
saw
zezelf
them-self
(23) a. Zij
They
zorgden
took
voor
care
hen/*ze
16
for them
I conclude that ze does not behave as a personal pronoun. Rather, it has properties
that remind us of discourse pronouns, such as die, cf. (17ad). On the other hand,
we have the result that ze is part of the paradigm of me/je/ze. Apparently, there
is a specic additional property of ze that disqualies it as a personal pronoun.
In view of our discussion on the nature of feature neutralisation, an explanation
emerges. As we saw, DIST is anaphoric to CP. DIST[ze] will therefore have an ab-
:,. The neuter pronoun het it cannot be used after prepositions either. The pronoun het shares
this property with unstressed neuter pronouns in general, such as alles everything, niets noth-
ing, dat that, etc. It might be that the theory developed in this paper is applicable to neuters.
It is far from clear whether neuter pronouns are singular or plural. They pass various tests on
singularity and plurality.
(i) Dit
This
en
and
dat
that
moet/*moeten
must.sg
verkocht
sold
worden
be
(agreement test singularity)
(ii) Dat
That
versterkt
reinforces
elkaar
each other
(reciprocity test plurality)
Further research is needed.
:o. This sentence is grammatical in the Dutch area without neutralisation, cf. (19b).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.13 (698-752)
Syntactic theory of number neutralisation :
stract relation to CP, which we may think of as a LF-movement relation. It is DIST
that disqualies ze as a personal pronoun. The movement analysis predicts the
grammaticality judgements in (21)(23), parallel to the data in (17). Furthermore,
the assumption of a syntactically active DIST immediately explains the implica-
tional relation of (20): if there is neutralisation, ze moves. If it moves, it cannot be
prepositional as Dutch does not have preposition stranding.
,.i.i ze as a subject pronoun
In the previous paragraph we have seen that there is number neutralisation in the
Dutch object pronoun ze. This comes about by an anaphoric distributor (DIST),
which is anaphoric to topic features in CP. The distributor turns ze (a singular
personal pronoun) into a discourse pronoun. This number neutralisation is only
present in the southern dialects. The situation as to subject ze (she/they) is much
simpler. All dialects display the neutralisation. Moreover, the weak pronoun has
its emphatic counterpart zij (she/they) with identical properties.
(24) a. Ze/zij
She
gaat
goes.sg
naar
to
Amsterdam
Amsterdam
b. Ze/zij
They
gaan
go.pl
naar
to
Amsterdam
Amsterdam
We could of course copy the reasoning from the previous paragraph, but this
would leave unexplained why there is no language variation with respect to neu-
tralisation in the subject pronouns. This lack of variation extends to the German
dialects (sie = she/they). Pronouns that are not etymologically related, such as
Frisian hja (she/they), equally display number neutralisation. This absence of
variation, language internally (all pronouns comply) and cross-linguistically (all
continental Germanic variants comply) asks for an explanation. Does it correlate
with another property? We would like to suggest that it correlates with a specic
type asymmetric V2: Dutch, Frisian and German at the one hand, and Swedish,
Yiddish and Icelandic at the other hand. The denition needs some care, as various
demarcation line s are possible. As it has been argued in the literature that German
and Frisian have embedded V2 under bridge verbs (Reis 1997; De Haan & Weer-
man 1986), a property that has similarity with Mainland Scandinavian (Vikner
1994), which display inversion with embedded topicalisation under bridge verbs
only. However, the similarities are supercial. They disappear if we conne our-
selves to integrated embedded clauses, i.e. to subordinated clauses with an overt
complementizer that can have dependencies with quantiers in the main clause. As
argued in De Haan (2001), Frisian embedded clauses with V2 resist such relations.
Embedded V2 structures are in fact coordinated structures with dat as a coordina-
tor. Its distinct status is conrmed by the fact that complementizer argeement in
embedded V2 is blocked.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.14 (752-804)
:| Gertjan Postma
(25) a. Do
you
sjochst
look.2sg
sa
so
min
bad
dat
that
do
you
soest
should.2sg
mar
PRT
op
to
bd
bed
b. *Do
you
sjochst
look.2sg
sa
so
min
bad
datst
that.2sg
do
you
soest
should.2sg
mar
PRT
op
to
bd
bed
c. Do
you
sjochst
look.2sg
sa
so
min
bad
datst
that.2sg
do
you
mar
PRT
op
to bed
soest
should.2sg
you look so bad that you better go to bed
As we want to investigate the anaphoric relation between subject pronouns and
features in C, this restriction to true embedding seems natural. In (26), I render
the correlation in a table.
(26) Language symmetric V2
17
number neutralisation
(m.sg/f.sg//m+f.pl)
Dutch no yes (hij/zij//zij)
German no yes (er/sie//sie)
Frisian no yes (hy/hja//hja)
Surselvan no yes (ej//ej)
Swedish yes no (han/hon//de)
Yiddish yes no (er/si//sii) (cf. Katz 1987)
English yes no (he/she//they)
Icelandic yes no (hann/hun//their/thaer)
Even the Swiss Rhaeto-Romance dialects (e.g. Surselvan), which have a Romance
base, display number neutralisation to the extent they do not have gender (ej
ambient it, arbitrary they, Haiman 1990). This tells us two things: number neu-
tralisation seems to be blocked by overt gender marking, and secondly, number
neutralisation in subjects does not seem a lexical property of any specic root
but seems to be linked to a common parameter setting of continental Germanic.
Let us see if the Theory of Neutralisation gives us a clue what this parameter
setting might be.
As we see from the data in (24), the situation with neutralised subjects is dif-
ferent from the situation with objects: neutralisation in subjects does not give rise
to ambiguity because of the overt singular-plural opposition in the verbal agree-
ment. It seems that verbal agreement somehow facilitates number neutralisation
in Dutch, Frisian and German, but not for instance in English or Icelandic. It does
so because of some property of common continental Germanic. Within a theory
with an anaphoric DIST, the suggestion is imminent that agreement can function
as an antecedent to DIST in continental Germanic. Put differently: in languages
:. Evaluation of main clauses versus integrated embedded clauses with overt complementizer.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.15 (804-856)
Syntactic theory of number neutralisation :,
in which C acts as a probe (Van Koppen 2005), the agreement features in C can
function as an antecedent to DIST. The structure is given in (27).
(27) [
CP
spec C
agr,
[
IP
[DIST
[ze]] t
V
. . .
In main clauses the inected verb is always in C in V2 languages. So, the solu-
tion in (27) is straightforward for main clauses.
18
However, number neutralisation
also occurs in embedded clauses, cf. (28). In embedded clauses the nite verb is
clause nal.
(28) dat ze naar huis gaat/gaan
1. that she to home goes
2. that they to home go
There is ample evidence, however, that C is a probe both for main and embedded
clauses (Van Koppen 2005), which shows up as the well-known and well-studied
phenomenon of complementizer agreement (Zwart 1993; Hoekstra 1997), a prop-
erty of many dialects of the asymmetric V2 languages. An example is given in (29),
which is Dedemsvaarts, a dialect from the North-eastern part of the Netherlands.
(29) a. datte
that.pl
C
wi
we
(. . . )
(. . . )
speult
play.pl
I
(Low-Saxon, Van Haeringen 1962)
b. Dan
Then
speule
play.pl
C
wi
we
In (29) we have a Low-Saxon dialect that has two verbal present tense paradigms,
a clause nal paradigm in -t and a V2 paradigm in -e. Signicantly, the inec-
tional plural morpheme in inversion contexts, -e, also shows up as inection on
the complementizer. This shows that inversion contexts are CP contexts. For em-
bedded clauses we therefore assume the same structure as in (26), although the
agreement features in C remain in some dialects without spell-out. The true cor-
relation of number neutralisation in the subject pronoun is therefore with abstract
phi-features in C rather than overt. C with abstract phi-features act as a probe for
phi-features in I and causes that these languages display overt I-to-C, which derives
the correlation in (25).
,. Discourse properties of ze
In the previous sections, we have shown that the 3rd person pronoun ze behaves
like a discourse pronoun with respect to various tests. We attributed this behaviour
to the abstract distributor DIST, which is CP oriented. We have left one essential
:8. DIST[je] cannot take the AGR features in C as an antecedent, since DIST has only A-
dependencies in the case of je.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.16 (856-920)
:o Gertjan Postma
test for later discussion: disjoint reference. It is now the moment to verify to what
extent ze indeed complies with principle C. As ze is a pronoun, we can only study
disjoint reference by means of bi-clausal structures. If we take standard bi-clausal
structures, however, our expectation is not borne out. Consider (30).
(30) De jongens
i
dachten dat ik *die/ze
i
bedroog.
The boys thought.pl that I them cheated
While a true discourse pronoun, such as die that, indeed displays disjoint refer-
ence with a c-commanding antecedent, ze can be bound. It must be kept in mind,
though, that a true discourse pronoun moves to the highest CP, and causes a cross-
over effect with the subject of the main clause (de jongens). DIST on the other
hand, has a relation with the rst c-commanding CP. The structures are in (31).
(31) a. (cross-over)
b. (no cross-over)
This explains the asymmetry between die and ze with respect to disjoint refer-
ence. If this line of reasoning is on the right track, decisive data will be bi-clausal
structures without intermediate CP. Typical structures are given in (32).
19
These
are AcI constructions, where the embedded subject receives Accusative case from
the matrix verb. This is evidence that no embedded CP is present. Let us look
at the data:
(32) a. Mijn
my
kinderen
i
children
vinden
believe
IP
[mij
me
*die
i
/*ze
i
/hun/hen
i
them
te
too
weinig
little poket
zakgeld
money
geven]
give.inf
My children think I give them too little pocket money
b. De
the
jongens
i
boys
hoorden
heared.pl
IP
[de
the
directeur
director
*die
i
/*ze
i
/hun/hen
i
them
bespotten]
mock.inf
The boys heard the director mock them
We see that in such structures the object pronoun ze, in fact [DIST [ze]], behaves
on a par with die rather than with true pronouns without number neutralisation,
such as hen/hun. This is clear evidence that ze has a special relation with CP. The
structure of (32b) is in (33).
(33)
:. We have tested these judgements with a group of 8 informants.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.17 (920-982)
Both die and ze cause a cross-over effect by moving past the co-indexed sub-
ject, while hun/hen do not move. This is evidence that a pronoun with number
neutralisation (ze) behaves syntactically distinct from pronouns without number
neutralisation, such as hun/hen. A minimal pair is given in (34), where we have
two sentences with the same meaning, one nite, the other innitival.
(34) a. De
the
jongens
i
boys
vroegen
asked.pl
mij
me
of
if
ik
I
ze
i
/hen
i
/hun
i
them
wilde
wanted.sg
helpen
help.inf
b. De
The
jongens
i
boys
vroegen
asked
mij
me
*die
i
/*?ze
i
/hen
i
/hun
i
them
te
to
helpen
help
The boys asked me (if I wanted) to help them
Once again, the disjoint reference effect shows up with ze, but not with hen/hun.
Moreover, ze does display the effect in function of the absence/presence of an em-
bedded complementizer. We can take this as independent evidence that number
generalisation is established in the syntax.
o. An application: The rise of English they
In Section 4.2.2, we established a correlation between number neutralisation in
subject pronouns and asymmetric V2. The relation between an alleged mor-
phological property and a well-established syntactic property (V2) can be ex-
plained using Kaynes abstract distributor, which is A-anaphoric (DIST) or A-bar
anaphoric (DIST). In this section, we apply it to older stages. We will see that
the correlation between the two grammatical properties sheds new light on an
important language change in the history of English.
In (35) I give the correlation from Section 4.2.2 for older language stages.
(35) Language symmetric V2 number neutralisation
Old-Saxon no yes (he/siu//siu)
Old-Frisian no yes (hy/hia//hia)
Old-HGerman no yes (er/siu//siu)
Old Kentish no? yes? (he/hio//hio)
Anglo-Saxon no? yes? (he/{heo, hio}//{hie, hio})
Old-Norse yes no (hann/hon//their/thaer)
Gothic yes no (is/si//eis/ijos)
The correlation parallels the one in (25). Only Anglo-Saxon is a bit problematic,
since the number of distinct 3rd person forms is huge. The introductory grammars
of Old-English do not claim number neutralisation, but if one considers the texts
and consult more advanced grammars one gets doubts. The CHEAL (1907) writes:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.18 (982-1038)
:8 Gertjan Postma
The forms of the Old English pronouns of the third person, in all dialects, were,
in several instances, curiously near to being alike in pronunciation. The mascu-
line nominative h[char] was not very different from the feminine nominative and
accusative h[char]o (also h[char]e, h[char]), and this closely resembled the plural
nominative and accusative h[char]e or h[char]. (With [char]=i and its variants)
This is illustrated in (36).
(36) Ond eghwylc thara aerfewearda the aefter him to thaem londe foe, thonne
ageofen hio tha ilcan elmessan to Cristes-cirican for Aelfredes sawle
And whoever of the heirs (that) succeeds to the land after him, (then) they
give the same charity to the Christian church for Alfreds soul.
(Kentish Charters 23c42, AD 871-886)
The situation is even more extreme in Old-Kentish. Sweet (1908: lxvi) notes that
in Kentish texts hio she was used as a singular fem, as a plural they and even
in object position. In this respect, Kentish displays a pronominal subject system
that is close to German, where sie (she, they, her, them) is used as a singular
and a plural, both in subject and in object position. Not accidentally, this Ken-
tish dialect is most conservative with respect to the V2 constraint (Kroch & Taylor
2000).
20
This shows us three things. Once again, it shows us that neutralisation in
the pronominal systemis not tied to particular roots: both German sie and Kentish
hio display a similar system. Secondly, it suggests that Kentish represents the orig-
inal situation: number neutralisation plus asymmetric V2. Third, it suggests that
there might have been an (internally triggered?) change in the pronominal sys-
tem in the 9th c. long before the invasions by the Normans. The specialisation of
singular and plurals 3rd person had implications for the asymmetric V2 property.
However, whether this change was language internal or not, it is clear that the
change was boosted by the introduction of the Nordic form they. The new system
he/she//they (from 1300 onward) established a clear loss of neutralisation with the
consequence that the language started to be in the category of Icelandic, Mainland
Scandinavian, etc. From this perspective the borrowing of they and the changes of
asymmetric V2, properties that occurred under language contact with the Nordic
invaders, are not completely independent.
. Conclusions
We have shown that number neutralisation is not a lexical paradigmatic prop-
erty, but is established by syntactic means. There is an abstract distributor, DIST,
io. Except in Kentish, a particularly archaic southern dialect, we nd by the mid-fourteenth
century that the V2 constraint is clearly being lost (Kroch & Taylor 2000).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.19 (1038-1134)
with syntactic properties that are responsible for number neutralisation. DIST is
anaphoric, and can take argumental antecedents (Romance se, Dutch object je)
and non-argumental antecedents (features in CP). A non-argumental antecedent
is active when a pronoun resides in subject position. In that position, C
can bind
DIST provided that C
acts as a probe for agreement features, which typically is

the case in asymmetric V2 languages.
References
CHEAL Ward and Trent, et al. (Eds.). The Cambridge History of English and American Litera-
ture. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 19071921.
MAND Morfologische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten Goeman, Taeldeman, Van Reenen
dialect transscripties, 19801995. Meertensinstituut. Amsterdam.
RND Blancquaert e.a. (1931). Reeks Nederlandse Dialectatlassen. Text en Kaarten.
SAND Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten S. Barbiers, et al. Meertensinstituut
2005.
Aoun, Joseph (1985). A Grammar of Anaphora. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Baker, J. (1985[1988]). Incorporation. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
Barbiers, S. (2005). Variation in the morphosyntax of ONE. Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics, 8(3), 159183.
Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In A.
Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of Taking Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bennis, H. (2003). Pronoms de la deuxime personne en nerlandais; Contrastes en forme et en
interprtation. Journal of the British Institute in Paris, 33/34, 1021.
Bobaljik, J. D. (2004). Paradigms (optimal and otherwise): A case for scepticism. Ms. UConn.
Haan, G. de & Weerman, F. (1986). Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian. In H. Haider & M.
Prinzhorn (Eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages (pp. 77110). Dordrecht:
Foris.
Haan, G. de (2001). More is going on upstairs than downstairs: Embedded root phenomena in
West Frisian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Syntax, 4, 338.
Haeringen, C. B. van (1962). Gramarie. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Haiman, J. (1990). Rhaeto-Romance. In M. Harris &N. Vincent (Eds.), The Romance Languages.
London: Routledge.
Hoekstra, E. (1997). Vervoegde voegwoorden in de Nederlandse dialecten: Een aantal
generalisaties. In E. Hoekstra & C. Smits (Eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden (pp. 630).
Amsterdam: P.J. Meertensinstituut.
Hoekstra, J. (1994). Pronouns and case: On the distribution of Frisian harren and se them.
Leuvense Bijdragen, VL, 83, 4765.
Katz, D. (1987). Grammar of the Yiddish Language. London: Duckworth.
Kayne, R. S. (2000). Person morphemes and reexives in Italian, French and related languages.
In Richard S. Kayne, Parameters and Universals [Oxford studies in comparative syntax] (pp.
Koppen, M. van (2005). One Probe Two Goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD
dissertation, Leiden University.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 15:03 F: LA9706.tex / p.20 (1134-1241)
ioo Gertjan Postma
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (2000). Verb-object order in early Middle English. In S. Pintzuk et al.
(Eds.), Diachronic Syntax. Models and mechanisms (pp. 132163). Oxford: OUP.
Kusters, W. (2003). Linguistic Complexity The Inuence of Social Change on Verbal Inection.
PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
Platzack, C. (1989). The role of AGR and niteness in Germanic VO languages. Working Papers
in Scandinavian Syntax, 43, 5176.
Pollock, J-Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic
Inquiry, 20, 265424.
Poletto, C. & Beninc, P. (2005). The third dimension of person features. Talk presented at the
Workshop Variation in Inection, December 1920, 2005, University of Amsterdam.
Postal, P. (1969). On the so-called pronouns in English. In D. Reibel & S. Shane (Eds.), Modern
Studies in English (pp. 201224). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Postma, G. J. (1984). The Dutch pronoun diens, distribution and reference properties. Linguistic
in the Netherlands, 1984, 147157.
Postma, G. J. (1993). The syntax of the morphological defectivity of BE. HIL Manuscripts, 3,
3167.
Postma, G. J. (2000). Distributive universal quantication and aspect in Brazilian Portuguese. In
J. Costa (Ed.), Portuguese Syntax New Comparative Studies (pp. 241265). Oxford: OUP.
Postma, G. J. (2004). Structurele tendensen in de opkomst van het reexief pronomen zich in
het 15de-eeuwse Drenthe en de theorie van reexiviteit. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 9, 144168.
Postma, G. J. (2006). Language contact and linguistic complexity the rise of the reexive
pronoun zich in a 15th century Netherlands border dialect. In D. Jonas & S. Andersen
(Eds.) Proceedings of DIGS-8. Oxford: OUP.
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657720.
Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 4788.
Reis, M. (1997). Zum syntaktischen Status unselbststndiger Verbzweit-Stze. In C. Drscheid,
K. Ramers, & M. Schwarz (Eds.), Syntax im Fokus (pp. 121144).
Reuland, E. (2000). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439492.
Riemsdijk, H. van (1978). A Case Study in Markedness: The binding nature of prepositional
phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.
Rizzi, L. (2004). On the Form of Chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. Ms. University of
Sienna.
Saussure, F. de (1910[1993]). Course in General Linguistics (ed. by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye with
the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger; translated from the French and annotated by R.
Harris). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Schutter, G. de (1987). Morfologische categorien van Persoonspronomina in Nederlandse
dialecten. In Morfologie Themanummer Taal & Tongval, 4353.
Sweet, H. (1908). An Anglo-Saxon Reader. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vikner, S. (1994). Finite verb movement in Scandinavian embedded clauses. In N. Hornstein &
D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Verb Movement (pp. 117147). Cambridge: CUP.
Uit den Boogaart, P. C. (1975). Woordfrequenties in Geschreven en Gesproken Nederlands.
Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema.
Zwart, J.-W. (1993). Dutch Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.1 (48-132)
Long relativization in Zurich German
as resumptive prolepsis
Martin Salzmann
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Long relativization in Zurich German is a construction with paradoxical proper-
ties. Some properties (reconstruction effects) suggest movement out of the com-
plement clause, whereas others show that the complement clause is a barrier.
This paradox is resolved by assuming a tough-movement style analysis: Operator
movement in the complement clause derives a predicate and licenses an extra
argument, the proleptic object. This in turn is A-moved in the matrix clause and
deleted under identity with the external head. The predication analysis proposed
here makes an alternative strategy for reconstruction available and accounts for
many of the puzzling properties of the construction.
:. Introduction: Relativization in Zurich German
1
Restrictive relatives in Zurich German (ZG) are interesting for three reasons. First,
ZG (and Southern Alemannic dialects more generally) stand out among relatives
in German(ic) in that they use resumptive pronouns (ignoring Yiddish). Second,
the distribution of resumptive pronouns in ZGyields a pattern that is crosslinguis-
tically interesting (although not unique). Third, resumptive pronouns in ZG only
occur in relativization, but not in wh-movement or topicalization.
2
In this section, I will rst discuss general properties of restrictive relatives in
ZG and then the distribution of resumptive pronouns.
:. The research reported on here is presented in much more detail in Chapter 4 of Salzmann
(2006b).
i. They also occur in comparatives, but to a much more limited degree, cf. Salzmann (2006a,
2006b).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.2 (132-199)
ioi Martin Salzmann
:.: General form of restrictive relatives in Zurich German
ZG relatives are postnominal and head external, which is little surprising for a
Germanic language. More interestingly, there are no relative pronouns (except for
certain adverbial relations like the reason why and the manner how), but instead
an invariant complementizer wo is used to introduce relative clauses.
3
The use
of an invariant complementizer is an inconspicuous property of many varieties of
German, bare wo is used in all Alemannic dialects and also found in many Bavarian
and Upper Franconian dialects, cf. Fleischer (2003: 227). In certain grammatical
relations, a resumptive pronoun appears instead of a gap.
4
Those resumptives are
formally identical to weak pronouns and tend to occur relatively high in the clause,
arguably in the Wackernagel position.
5
:.i Distribution of resumptive pronouns: Local relativization
In local relativization, resumptive pronouns are only found in oblique relations,
i.e. with datives, possessors and complements of prepositions, but crucially not
with subjects and direct objects (Weber 1964; van Riemsdijk 1989):
6, 7
. The relative complementizer appears as won before vowels.
|. The term resumptive pronoun is used inconsistently in the literature. I use it as a purely
descriptive term for elements that look like personal pronouns and are A-bound, i.e. have an
antecedent in an A-position (whether resumptive pronouns are also found in A-chains is un-
clear). Whether the pronoun participates in a movement or a binding dependency and in case of
movement is just the spell-out of a trace or rather a true pronoun are issues of implementation
I will discuss below.
,. The resumptive element is not always a weak pronoun. In local relativization, strong pro-
nouns and demonstratives are possible as well; in long relativization, epithets are found; a
discussion of these cases is beyond the scope of this paper, but cf. Salzmann (2006b) for detailed
analysis.
o. Things are more complex when it comes to datives. Resumptives are systematically found
for animate indirect objects (even though some speakers have started dropping the resumptive
in recent years). With inanimates and unaccusative verbs with dative > nominative order, re-
sumptives are awkward, often leading to ungrammaticality. Puzzlingly, many of those cases do
not improve if the resumptive is omitted. See Salzmann (2006b) for full discussion.
. ZG and Swiss dialects in general is merely a spoken language and has no strict or-
thography. In my transcription, I follow basically the spelling guidelines of Dieth (1938), and
Dieth & Schmid-Cadalbert (1986) respectively. Dieths (1938: 13) key principle schreibe so, wie
du sprichst, wie du es hrst und empndest write like you speak, like you hear and feel has
been widely adopted. This is particularly true for vowel and consonant lengths. I chose, how-
ever, not to use diacritics as proposed in the above-mentioned guidelines. This is because such
phonetically close transcriptions are not necessary for the purposes pursued here. Moreover,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.3 (199-221)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis io
(1) a. d
the
Frau,
woman
wo
C
(*si)
(she)
immer
always
z
too
spaat
late
chunt
comes
the woman who is always late (subject)
b. s
the
Chuchichschtli,
kitchen.cupboard
won
C
i
I
(*s)
it
vor.churzem
recently
kchauft
bought
han
have.1s
the kitchen cupboard I recently bought (direct object)
c. de
the
Bueb,
boy
wo
C
mer
we
*(em)
(he.dat)
es
a
Velo
bike
versproche
promised
hnd
have.1p
the boy we promised a bike (indirect object)
d. d
the
Frau,
woman
won
C
i
I
von
from
*(ere)
(she.dat)
es
a
Buech
book
berchoo
got
han
have.1s
the woman from whom I got a book (P-object)
:. Distribution of resumptive pronouns: Long-distance relativization
Once we look at long-distance relativization, we nd resumptives for all relations,
even subjects and direct objects:
(2) a. d
the
Frau,
woman
wo
C
t
you
gsit
said
hsch,
have.2s
dass
that
*(si)
she
kn
no
Frnd
boyfriend
ht
has
the woman who you said has no boyfriend (subject)
b. s
the
Bild,
picture
wo
C
t
you
gsit
said
hsch,
have.2s
dass
that
*(es)
it
de
the
Peter
Peter
wett
wants
verchauffe
to.sell
the picture that you said Peter wants to sell (direct object)
many of the sounds at issue are in (near-)allophonic variation with sounds that correspond to
graphemes present in the ordinary alphabet. This is particularly true for the virtually nondis-
tinctive lengths of the palatal and the velar fricatives as well as for some vowel qualities. Some
problems arise with the several e-sounds: The letter <e> is used for [e], as well as for Schwa,
which exclusively appears in reduced syllables predominantly at the end of the word, and for [7]
while <> exclusively corresponds to []. Again, there is little need to use diacritics to distin-
guish [e] from [7] in my data set especially since the contrast is neutralized in certain contexts.
The only word where I explicitly mark the vowel quality is (g)g give(n). Here, <> corre-
sponds to [7]. In some cases, I intentionally deviate from the spelling guidelines by using forms
similar to Standard German spelling in order to facilitate comprehension. A case in point is
the complementizer <dass> which phonetically would be transcribed as [das] in Zurich Ger-
man. I chose the Standard German spelling to distinguish it from the Standard German relative
pronoun <das>.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.4 (221-288)
io| Martin Salzmann
i. Long relativization as aboutness relatives: Van Riemsdijk (to appear)
This asymmetry between local and long relativization is somewhat surprising. The
local pattern can be explained straightforwardly by the assumption that oblique
case needs to be realized, a condition operative in many languages that use resump-
tive pronouns, cf. e.g. Pesetsky (1998). Bayer et al. (2001) have pointed out that this
constraint is operative in Standard German (though in other areas), and Salzmann
(2006a) discusses matching effects that clearly show that the local ZG pattern is
best understood as a means to guarantee the recoverability of oblique case.
The long-distance pattern, however, is surprising given the facts from local
relativization. One would expect the transparent local pattern, for which there is
independent evidence in other parts of the grammar, to be found in all aspects
of relativization. The asymmetry clearly suggest that something else must be re-
sponsible for the appearance of resumptive pronouns in long relativization.
8
This
is, I believe, the starting point for a reanalysis of long relativization in ZG by van
Riemsdijk (to appear). I will introduce this approach in the next section.
i.: Locative relatives and aboutness relatives: Adverbial wo
Next to resumptive relatives, there is one type of relative where a gap appears
in both local and long relativization, namely locative relatives. They are also in-
troduced by wo. The same form is used for so-called aboutness relatives (van
Riemsdijk to appear) which have a vague locative meaning and express corollary
circumstances (similar to English expressions like with this weather):
(3) a. s
the
Huus,
house
wo
C
t
you
gsit
said
hsch,
have.2s
dass
that
de
the
Peter
Peter
__ wont
lives
the house where you said Peter lives
b. es
a
Wtter,
weather
wo
C
s
it
sich
self
__ nd
not
loont,
is.worthwhile
de
the
Raase
lawn
z
to
mje
mow
a weather where there is no point in mowing the lawn
Van Riemsdijk (to appear) assumes that in both cases there is a phrasal relative
adverb wo where next to the relative complementizer wo. It moves to Spec, CP
and is eventually deleted under haplology with the complementizer:
8. In certain languages, e.g. Irish, resumptives are only barred fromthe matrix subject position.
For those cases, there have been proposals (e.g. McCloskey 1990) that make reference to the
notion A-disjointness, basically the A-version of Principle B. A very different explanation is
found in Boeckx (2003). The Zurich German pattern is also found in Welsh (Rouveret 2002).
Unfortunately, the syntax of Welsh resumptive relatives is different in relevant respects so that
comparison does not provide new insights.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.5 (288-362)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis io,
(4) DP
i
[
cp
[
xp
wo]
i
C
wo
[
xp
wo]
i
. . . ]
Since this is a normal case of phrasal A-movement, a resumptive pronoun is not
expected: The lower copy is deleted due to normal deletion of the lowest chain link
and the upper copy is exceptionally deleted by haplology.
i.i Long relativization as aboutness relativization
Now comes the crucial step: Van Riemsdijk (to appear) proposes that long rela-
tivization actually involves aboutness relativization in the matrix clause. If I in-
terpret him correctly (the paper is not very explicit on this point), the resumptive
pronoun we nd in the complement clause is simply a bound pronoun linked to its
antecedent by construal and not movement (van Riemsdijk speaks of an apparent
variable):
9
(5) the man
i
[
cp
[
xp
wo] C
wo
I [
xp
wo] think [
cp
he
i
. . . ]]
i. Advantages
This proposal has a number of important advantages. First, the appearance of a
pronoun is predicted because movement is not involved, and since ZG is not a
pro-drop language, an overt pronoun is necessary. Second, ZG can be argued to
instantiate a more abstract version of an alternative strategy to long relativiza-
tion in both German and Dutch (Section 6, Salzmann 2006b) whereby an of -XP
constituent appears in the matrix clause:
(6) der
the
Mann,
man
von
of
dem
i
who.dat
ich
I
glaube,
believe.1s
dass
that
er
i
he
intelligent
intelligent
ist
is
the man who I believe is intelligent
. An anonymous reviewer has correctly pointed out that the indexing employed in this exam-
ple and elsewhere in the paper is strictly speaking incorrect: The external head is only an NP and
therefore not a referring term so that it cannot be directly co-indexed with a pronoun. Rather,
the pronoun is co-indexed with an element in the matrix clause, arguably wo under van Riems-
dijks analysis (see Subsection 3.1.1), or [Op + a representation of the external head] under the
analysis proposed in Section 4. The NP part of the operator phrase in the matrix clause is then
related to/predicated of the external head. Under van Riemsdijks proposal, the resumptive is ar-
guably re-interpreted as a variable bound pronoun (a pronoun bound by an operator (wo) in an
A-position that undergoes further A-movement). Despite these complications, I will retain the
indexing for reasons of legibility, especially in the context of reconstruction effects. In Salzmann
(2006b) I discuss these issues and employ a different notation system.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.6 (362-427)
ioo Martin Salzmann
Third, there is a base construction: The constituent corresponding to wo in
both long relativization and aboutness relatives is realized as bi+DP at+DP if it
remains in-situ:
(7) a. es
a
Wtter,
weather
wo
C
s
it
sich
self
__ nd
not
loont,
is.worthwhile
de
the
Raase
lawn
z
to
mje
mow
a weather where there is no point in mowing the lawn
b. Es
it
loont
be.worthwhile
sich
self
bi
at
dem
this
Wtter
weather
nd,
not
de
the
Raase
lawn
z
to
mje.
mow
With this weather, there is no point in mowing the lawn.
(8) a. es
a
Mitli,
girl
wo
C
mer
one
sit,
says
dass
that
es
it
gern
likes.to
is
in.the
Kino
movie
gaat
goes
a girl who one says likes to go to the movies
b. Mer
one
sit
says
bi
at
dem
this
Mitli,
girl
dass
that
es
she
gern
likes.to
is
in.the
Kino
movie
gaat.
goes
One says about this girl that she likes to go to the movies.
Fourth, a fact not discussed in van Riemsdijk (to appear), if the bi-phrase is wh-
moved across another wh-phrase, we do not get a superiority violation. This would
be unexpected if that constituent were extracted from the complement clause be-
cause ZG, like Standard German, shows long distance superiority effects, cf. (9a).
However, since only two matrix wh-phrases compete, the absence of superiority
effects is predicted (9b):
(9) a. *Welem
which.dat
Scheler
pupil
glaubt
thinks
wele
which
Leerer,
teacher
dass
that
mer
one
__ stt
should
is
one
a
at
d
the
Oore
ears
g?
give
lit.: Which pupil does which teacher think that one should give a box on
the ears?
b. Bi
at
welem
which.dat
Scheler
student
glaubt
thinks
wele
which
Leerer,
teacher
dass
that
mer
one
em
he.dat
stt
should
is
one
a
at
d
the
Oore
ears
g?
give
Fifth, long relativization is insensitive to locality (the island appears in angled
brackets):
(10) de
the
Autor,
author
wo
C
d
the
Marie
Mary
< jedes
every
Buech
book
list,
reads
won
C
er
he
schriibt
writes
>
lit.: the author that Mary reads every book he writes
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.7 (427-483)
The alleged resumptive appears inside a relative clause. Since ZG obeys local-
ity constraints on movement elsewhere as in the following example with wh-
movement
10
(11) *Wer
who
list
reads
d
the
Marie
Mary
< jedes
every
Buech,
book
wo
C
__ schriibt
writes
>?
lit.: Who does Mary read every book that writes?
this would be unexpected under a movement account. It follows naturally,
however, under a pure construal relationship as proposed by van Riemsdijk
(to appear).
Although I believe that the basic idea of this analysis is correct, there are a
number of problems. They are discussed in the following section.
. Problems of van Riemsdijks (to appear) proposal
.: There seems to be a copy of the external head inside the relative
The rst type of problem concerns the nature of wo. If long relativization really
involves movement of wo in the matrix clause there is no relative clause inter-
nal representation of the external head. As a consequence, we do not expect any
reections of this for processes like binding. However, this is exactly what we nd.
.:.: Strong crossover effects
If a matrix subject is co-indexed with a resumptive in the complement clause
ungrammaticality results:
(12) *de
the
Maa
i
,
man
won
C
er
i
he
tnkt,
thinks
dass
that
en
i
him
niemert
no.one
gern.ht
likes
lit.: the man
i
who
i
he
i
thinks no one likes
I would like to argue that the ungrammaticality is due to a Strong Crossover (SCO)
effect, i.e. that there is movement of a coreferential element across the matrix
subject as in the following example from local relativization:
(13) *de
the
Maa
i
,
man
won
C
er
i
he
__ gern.ht
likes
lit.: the man
i
who
i
he
i
likes
:o. The example does not improve if the gap is replaced by a resumptive pronoun, cf. Salzmann
(2006b).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.8 (483-551)
io8 Martin Salzmann
Here, a direct object is A-moved across a coreferential pronominal subject. Im-
portantly, there has to be a relative clause internal representation of the external
head (i.e. an empty operator in D + Maa as in Bhatt (2002) (cf. 4.1), or at least a
relative pronoun with the same phi-features as the external head) to explain the
ungrammaticality of these examples. However, if according to van Riemsdijk (to
appear) only phrasal (local) wo moves, this does not follow:
(14) *de
the
Maa
i
, [
cp
man
[wo]
j
wo
won
C
er
i
he
[wo]
j
tnkt,
thinks
dass
that
en
i
him
niemert
no.one
gern.ht ]
likes
lit.: the man
i
who
i
he
i
thinks no one likes
Since wo being a locative form neither has phi-features nor contains a repre-
sentation of the external head, the SCO effect is unexpected.
One of the reviewers suggested assigning wo the index i instead. This seems
indeed a reasonable assumption: It is clear that wo somehow has to be related to
the external head and to the resumptive pronoun. Assigning it the same index as
the two would take care of this, thereby yielding the right result for the SCOeffects:
(15) *de
the
[Maa]
i
, [
CP
man
[wo]
i
wo
won
C
er
i
[wo]
i
he
tnkt,
thinks
dass
that
en
i
him
niemert
no.one
gern.ht ]
likes
lit.: the man
i
who
i
he
i
thinks no one likes
In a sense, wo would be the overt counterpart of the empty operator, which is
also compatible with any kind of external head, any value for animacy, gender,
number and person. I think there are two reasons why such an approach is still
problematic: First, overt relative pronouns are normally not so exible, they are
only compatible with certain antecedents even if they are invariant (cf. e.g. Dutch
prepositional waar). Second, adopting an operator movement analysis for relative
clauses, i.e. the traditional Head External Analysis, is at odds with recent work that
has shown it to be quite undesirable, especially when it comes to reconstruction
effects, cf. e.g. Bhatt (2002). This aspect is important in the light of the following
subsection.
.:.i Reconstruction into the matrix clause
An even stronger argument for the relative clause internal representation of the
external head comes from reconstruction effects. The following example shows
that material contained inside the external head can be bound by elements inside
the matrix clause. The following example illustrates this for Principle A:
11
::. As opposed to English, anaphors in ZG cannot be used logophorically so that the concern
voiced in Sar (1999) and Bhatt (2002) does not apply. Anaphors are subject to Principle A in
ZG and require a c-commanding antecedent to be licensed. For anaphor binding I have made
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.9 (551-625)
(16) s
the
inzige
only
Grcht
rumor
ber
about
siich
i
,
self
wo
C
de
the
Peter
i
Peter
ndt,
nds
dass
that
es
it
unggrcht
unfair
isch
is
the rumor about himself
i
that Peter
i
thinks is unfair
Given standard assumptions about the treatment of reconstruction in the Min-
imalist Program (e.g. Fox 1999; Bhatt 2002), a full copy of the external head is
necessary inside the matrix clause. This implies that movement of bare wo is in-
sufcient. I assume for the sake of the argument that wo is the antecedent of the
resumptive pronoun and that it is co-indexed with the external head as under the
traditional Head External Analysis of relative clauses:
(17) s
the
[Grcht
rumor
ber
about
siich
i
]
j
, [
cp
self
[wo]
j
wo
wo
C
de
the
Peter
i
Peter
[wo]
j
wo
ndt,
nds
dass
that
es
j
it
unggrcht
unfair
isch ]
is
.i Reconstruction into the embedded clause
The second type of problem concerns the absence of an A-dependency. If I read
him correctly, van Riemsdijk (to appear) assumes that the resumptive pronoun in
the embedded clause is not part of an A-dependency, i.e. that it is not a resump-
tive pronoun at all. That is probably why he refers to it as an alleged variable.
However, there is evidence that it does participate in an A-dependency.
Reconstruction effects turn out to be more pervasive in ZG relatives. Material
contained inside the external head can also be bound by elements inside the em-
bedded clause. The following triple illustrates this for Principle A, variable binding
and idiom formation:
12, 13
sure that binding cannot be due to a coreferential implicit PRO by using rumor where this is
ruled out, cf. Bianchi (1999: 117f.).
:i. The expression e Reed schwinge lit. swing a speech means give a speech. As pointed out
in de Vries (2002: 78f.) the types of expressions that can be used in relativization all involve NPs
that more or less retain their meaning in these idiomatic expressions/collocations. Completely
opaque idioms cannot be used in relativization.
:. I do not deal with reconstruction for scope and the interpretation of superlative adjectives
(Bhatt 2002; Heycock 2003) here because a full discussion of the (intriguing) complications
found in that domain is beyond the scope of this paper. See Salzmann (2006b) for detailed
analysis.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.10 (625-666)
i:o Martin Salzmann
(18) a. s
the
[Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i
]
j
,
self
wo
C
t
you
gsit
said
hsch,
have.2s
dass
that
de
the
Peter
i
Peter
s
j
it
wett
wants
verchauffe
to.sell
the picture of himself
i
that you said Peter
i
wants to sell
b. De
the
[Abschnitt
period
vo
of
sim
i
his
Lbe]
j
,
life
won
C
i
I
glaub,
think
dass
that
niemert
i
no.one
dr
j
-ber
it-about
redt,
talks
isch
is
d
the
Pubertt.
puberty
The period of his
i
live that I think no one
i
talks about is puberty.
c. D
the
[Reed]
j
,
speech
won
C
i
I
gsit
said
han,
have
dass
that
er
he
si
j
it
geschter
yesterday
gschwunge
swung
ht,
has
ht
has
mer
me
gfale.
pleased
I liked the speech I said he gave yesterday.
The resumptive pronouns indicate the reconstruction sites.
14
Again, given stan-
dard assumptions about reconstruction in recent versions of the Principles and
Parameters framework, a copy of the external head has to be present inside the
complement clause. That this is incompatible with the phrasal wo that van Riems-
dijk (to appear) postulates was shown in the previous subsection. Even if we grant
that reconstruction is also possible via co-indexing between external head and
relative pronoun (as in traditional analyses of relative clauses), this will not be suf-
cient for the case at hand because wo does not originate in the embedded clause
and therefore never occupies the position where the content of the external head
is interpreted in the examples above. The only possible way out for van Riemsdijk
seems to be to assume that reconstruction is in principle independent of move-
ment and that the content of the external head can somehow be copied into the
position of the resumptive pronoun. While I cannot fully discuss reconstruction
in non-movement contexts here, it seems to be generally agreed upon that recon-
struction under a pure binding relationship requires at least an A-dependency. A
non-movement A-dependency, which is what I take van Riemsdijk to be postulat-
ing between wo and the resumptive in long ZG relativization, however, normally
does not show reconstruction effects: Control, an A-dependency which under
traditional assumptions does not involve movement, does not show reconstruc-
:|. In (18b) the resumptive is an R-pronoun that appears whenever the antecedent is inani-
mate, neuter and governed by a preposition (see Salzmann 2006b for a more precise statement).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.11 (666-721)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis i::
tion effects while raising (which does involve A-movement) does, as the following
contrast shows. Only the raising example is ambiguous (cf. e.g. Fox 1999):
15, 16
(19) a. Someone from New York is likely to win in the lottery.
> likely; likely >
b. Someone from New York tried/promised to win in the lottery.
> tried; *tried >
. Obligatoriness of the resumptive
Under van Riemsdijks approach, the aboutness wo is an adjunct that is indepen-
dently (semantically) licensed. One would expect the same to hold for the wo in
long relativization. Interestingly, however, more seems to be necessary to license
wo: long relativization requires a resumptive pronoun in the embedded clause:
(20) es
a
[Resultaat]
j
,
result
won
C
i
I
glaub,
believe
dass
that
de
the
Hans
John
zfride
satised
isch
is
*(de
j
-mit)
it-with
a result that I believe John is satised with
The obligatoriness of the resumptive (and the preposition) cannot be related to
selectional properties of the adjective in the embedded clause because it allows its
argument to be dropped:
(21) De
the
Chef
boss
isch
is
zfride
satised
(de-mit).
it-with
The boss is satised with it.
Omitting the PP-complement of the adjective does not affect the interpretation;
there can still be an implication that the boss is satised with something. This op-
tionality is not found in long-distance relativization in (20). This is unexpected if
wo is independently licensed. Matrix clause adjuncts (and arguments except those
of Control verbs) normally do not have to be resumed in the embeddedclause. The
following illustrates this for an aboutness adjunct (the construction has a Teutonic
avor, corresponding examples in Standard German are frequently found on the
internet):
:,. Since wo undergoes A-movement in the matrix clause, we get a Parasitic Gap-like congu-
ration. To the extent that Parasitic Gaps exist at all in Standard German (cf. Kathol 2001), they
do not allow for reconstruction.
:o. Another argument against a binding approach is anaphor binding in intermediate posi-
tions to be discussed in 4.2.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.12 (721-770)
i:i Martin Salzmann
(22) De
the
Parteipresidnt
party.leader
ht
has
bezglich
concerning
em
the
Waalresultat
election.result
bemerkt,
remarked
dass
that
mer
one
s
it
ganz
quite
offesichtlich
obviously
nd
not
gschaft
managed
ht,
has
de
the
Wler
voter
vo
of
de
the
igene
own
Idee
ideas
z
to
berzge.
convince
The party leader remarked concerning the election result that one has obvi-
ously not managed to convince the voter of ones ideas.
It seems unlikely that wo has quanticational properties (so that (20) without a
resumptive would be a case of vacuous quantication) given the fact that no such
obligatory binding is necessary in locative and aboutness relatives, cf. (3).
17
Rather,
it suggests that something else is necessary to license the wo-constituent in long-
distance relativization.
The problems reviewed in this section point towards a different implemen-
tation of van Riemsdijks (to appear) proposal. This is what I attempt in the
next section.
|. Proposal: Long relativization as resumptive prolepsis
The previous section has shown that in order to get the right interpretation, we
need a relative clause internal representation of the external head in both the
matrix and the embedded clause. While the matrix representationis quite straight-
forward, the representation inside the embedded clause requires more machinery
because (as we will see) the embedded clause is an island. I will propose an anal-
ysis reminiscent of tough-movement where there is operator movement inside the
complement clause. This movement licenses an extra argument, the bi+DP con-
stituent, which I will refer to as the proleptic object/constituent. This constituent
is not directly related to the resumptive pronoun in the embedded clause. Rather,
it is related via ellipsis to the operator in Spec, CP of the complement clause that
binds the resumptive, thereby making an alternative strategy for reconstruction
available. The bi+DP constituent undergoes A-movement in the matrix clause
and can be deleted in the operator position, partially due to the locative origin of
the relative complementizer. The presence of a resumptive pronoun follows from
a constraint that requires specic chains to be phonetically realized in ZG. The
entire structure represents what I call resumptive prolepsis.
:. Put more carefully, wo is an operator that binds the variable it leaves in the matrix clause,
but it does not require an additional variable such as the resumptive pronoun.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.13 (770-820)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis i:
|.: The derivation in the matrix clause: Against a phrasal wo
In this rst subsection, I will argue that there is no phrasal wo in long relativiza-
tion and aboutness relatives and possibly even in locative relatives.
|.:.: C-wo makes deletion of locative Ps recoverable
The SCO effects and the reconstruction effects into the matrix clause discussed
in 3.1 show that there has to be a representation of the external head inside the
matrix clause. I propose that instead of bare wo, we nd a full copy of the external
head, governedby the preposition bi at which we nd in the base construction, cf.
(8b). The entire PP undergoes A-movement to Spec, CP of the matrix clause. The
copy of the external head is PF-deleted under identity with it;
18
the preposition is
also PF-deleted because the complementizer wo, due to its locative origin, makes
the deletion of locative and aboutness prepositions recoverable. As a consequence,
there is no phonetic realization of the bi-PP:
19, 20
(23) de
the
Maa
i
, [
cp
man
[bi
at
Op
Op
Maa
i
]
j
man
won
C
i
I
[bi
at
x Maa
i
]
j
man
tnke,
think
dass
that
er
i
he
intellignt
intelligent
isch
is
the man who I think is intelligent
:8. To be more specic, I assume a Matching Analysis (e.g. Sauerland 1998, 2003; Citko 2001)
for ZG relative clauses. I cannot discuss the full range of facts that motivate this analysis for ZG
for reasons of space. Very briey, it has been pointed out in Heck (2005) that the Head Raising
Analysis is confronted with serious problems when applied to Standard German (among other
things, it leads to wrong case assignment on the external head and violates the CED); these
objections apply to ZG as well. At the same time, a pure Head External Analysis that only has an
empty operator inside the relative clause cannot capture the reconstruction effects (Bhatt 2002).
The Matching analysis avoids the problems of the Head Raising Analysis and manages to handle
the reconstruction effects (Bhatt 2002; Citko 2001). Ffurthermore, as we will see in 4.4.1 below,
it allows a straightforward explanation of the non-reconstruction for Principle C.
:. The external D is never reconstructed in relative clauses (cf. Bianchi 1999; Bhatt 2002). For
reasons of simplicity, I represent the relative operator as an empty operator. It might just as well
be a relative pronoun that is deleted, but in the absence of any evidence for this, I will stick to
the more innocuous choice.
io. The following representations encode both LF and PF. Outline indicates PF-deletion.
strikethrough LF-deletion. The restriction of the operator is LF-deleted and only retained in
the base position, in accordance with the Preference Principle (Chomsky 1995). The copy left by
the operator itself is converted into a variable.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.14 (820-914)
i:| Martin Salzmann
This assumption yields the desired result for the SCO effects and the reconstruc-
tion data:
21
(24) a. *de
the
[Maa
i
],
man
[
cp
[bi
at
Op
Op
Maa
i
]
j
man
won
C
er
i
he
[bi
at
x Maa
i
]
j
man
tnkt,
thinks
dass
that
en
i
him
kne
no.one
gern.ht ]
likes
lit.: the man
i
who
i
he
i
thinks no one likes
b. s
the
[Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i
]
k
,
self
[
cp
[bi
at
Op
Op
[Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i
]
k
]
j
self
wo
C
de
the
Peter
i
Peter
[bi
at
x Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i
]
j
self
ndt,
nds
dass
that
es
k
it
guet
good
gglunge
turned.out
isch
is
i
that Peter
i
thinks turned out good
In both cases, there is a representation of the external head inside the relative
clause, which explains why we get SCO effects and why reconstruction is possible.
The following triple illustrates schematically to what extent the complementizer
wo makes the PF-deletion of prepositions recoverable in normal relatives where
the relativized constituent originates in an oblique position:
(25) a. the city [
cp
[in the city]
i
wo I have [in the city]
i
lived
b. the weather [
cp
[bi the weather]
i
wo one [bi the weather]
i
should stay home
c. the man [
cp
[with the man]
i
wo I have [with him]
i
talked
In (25ab) locative and aboutness prepositions are recoverable. (25c) shows that
with other, semantically more specic prepositional relations, deletion is not re-
coverable. As a consequence, the preposition has to be realized (together with a
resumptive pronoun).
22
|.:.i Alleged phrasal wo does not pattern with other adverbial relatives
There is further evidence that the alleged phrasal wo does not exist: It can be shown
that locative relatives fail to pattern with other adverbial relatives which employ a
i:. The external head is LF-deleted when it contains material that is not licensed there such as
anaphors, bound variables or idiomatic NPs, elements which I refer to as elements with a posi-
tive licensing requirement. Elements which are licensed in the external head (e.g. R-expressions)
need not be deleted. A more explicit version of the deletion system assumed here is found in
Salzmann (2006b).
ii. One may wonder why the preposition is realized in the base positionand not upstairs. Since
I have assumed that PF-deletion of the constituent in Spec, CP is obligatory, the lower copy is
the only possible chain link for the preposition to be realized. The presence of the resumptive
follows either from the assumption that oblique case needs to be realized or the ban against
preposition stranding in ZG, cf. Salzmann (2006a, 2006b).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.15 (914-980)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis i:,
phrasal relative adverb that is not PF-deleted. Those adverbial relatives allow the C
position to be lled with the declarative complementizer dass that:
(26) a. de
the
Grund,
reason
werum
why
dass
that
de
the
Peter
Peter
z
too
spaat
late
choo
come
isch
is
the reason why Peter came late
b. D
the
Art,
way
wie
how
dass
that
de
the
Peter
Peter
s
the
Probleem
problem
gglst
solved
ht,
has
ht
has
mi
me
beiidruckt.
impressed
The way Peter solved the problem impressed me.
Interestingly, with locative wo a declarative complementizer is much worse:
(27) De
the
Ort,
place
wo
where
(
??
dass)
that
er
he
wont,
lives
will
wants
er
he
niemertem
nobody.dat
verraate.
tell
He does not want to reveal to anybody the place where he lives.
Crucially, when we look at the phrasal wh-adverb wo, we nd no such restriction.
This suggests that the deviance of (27) is not a property of phrasal wo as such:
(28) Ich
I
wiss
know
nd,
not
wo
where
dass
that
er
he
wont.
lives
I do not know where he lives.
I conclude from this that there is no phrasal relative adverb wo. One major advan-
tage of the approach advanced here is that there is only one wo in relativization,
namely the complementizer wo.
23, 24
i. Admittedly, the deviance of (27) also follows, if one assumes as van Riemsdijk (to appear)
does that the C- position is occupied by the complementizer wo. There is simply no space
for dass. The question is then why C-wo does not occur in the other adverbial relatives. An
anonymous reviewer suggests extending the constraint against two wo in the left periphery to
two w-words. This would rule out werum wo and wie wo, but crucially not werum dass and
wie dass. That is certainly a possibility. It implies that both wo and dass are in principle possible
complementizers in relativization. But this immediately raises a further question: Why is dass
not an option in resumptive relatives? Furthermore, this constraint may run into difculties
with multiple wh-questions where on an LF-movement analysis multiple wh-phrases occupy
specier positions of C. It seems therefore preferable to me at this point to keep resumptive and
adverbial relatives separate.
i|. Henk van Riemsdijk (p.c.) has pointed out to me that the relative modifying reason is also
different in that the wh-word can be dropped. This might suggest that there are independent
reasons for the different behavior. Josef Bayer (p.c.) has suggested in the same context that the
reason relative clause is actually a wh-complement. These facts might admittedly weaken the
argument made in the text. However, they leave (26b) unexplained. I will leave this for further
research.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.16 (980-1046)
i:o Martin Salzmann
|.i Reconstruction into an opaque domain?
The most intricate aspect of long relativization in ZG are arguably the data that
show reconstruction into the embedded clause (18). Since there is a base con-
struction with the aboutness constituent in the matrix clause, a direct movement
relationship from the embedded clause is unlikely. In fact, the complement CP
even turns out to be an island for extraction. The following triple rst illustrates
the base sentence with an aboutness constituent (29a); (29b) shows argument ex-
traction from the aboutness construction and (29c) shows argument extraction
from a normal complement clause:
(29) a. Ich
I
hoffe
hope
bim
at.the
Leerer
teacher
Mller,
Mller
dass
that
er
he
em
the.dat
Hansli
John
e
a
gueti
good
Noote
grade
git.
gives
I hope about teacher Mller that he will give little John a good grade.
b.
??
[Welem
which.dat
Scheler]
i
student
hoffsch
hope.2s
bim
at.the
Leerer
teacher
Mller,
Mller
dass
that
er
he
t
i
e
a
gueti
good
Noote
grade
git?
gives
lit.: Which student do you hope about teacher Mller that he will give a
good grade?
c. [Welem
which.dat
Scheler]
i
student
hoffsch,
hope.2s
dass
that
de
the
Leerer
teacher
Mller
M.
t
i
e
a
gueti
good
Noote
grade
git?
gives
Which student do you hope that teacher Mller will give a good grade?
The following pair contrasts adjunct extraction from the aboutness construction
(30a) with adjunct extraction from a normal complement clause (30b):
(30) a. *Werum
i
why
glaubsch
think.2s
bim
at.the
Peter,
Peter
dass
that
er
he
d
the
Marie
Mary
t
i
wett
wants
hraate?
marry
Why do you think about Peter that he wants to marry Mary?
b. Werum
i
why
glaubsch,
think.2s
dass
that
de
the
Peter
Peter
d
the
Marie
Mary
t
i
wett
wants
hraate?
to.marry
Why do you think that Peter wants to marry Mary?
Argument extraction is strongly degraded in the aboutness construction; adjunct
extraction is impossible. (30a) only has a matrix construal. No such restrictions
obtain with extraction from normal complement clauses. Argument and adjunct
extraction are both ne, (30b) allows both matrix and embedded construal.
This constitutes a paradox: There is reconstruction into a domain from which
extraction is impossible. One possible way out would be to assume that recon-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.17 (1046-1121)
struction is done via binding (perhaps Chain Binding along the lines of Barss
1986). However, this does not work because there is reconstruction into interme-
diate positions:
25
(31) s
the
[Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i/j
]
k
,
self
won
C
i
I
glaube,
think.1s
[
cp
dass
that
de
the
Peter
i
Peter
z.Unrecht
wrongly
tnkt
thinks
[
cp
dass
that
d
the
Marie
j
Mary
s
k
it
lssig
cool
ndt
nds
]]
lit.: the picture of him
i
-/herself
j
that I believe Peter
i
wrongly thinks that Mary
j
likes
The reexive can be bound by different subjects. Given our assumptions about
reconstruction, this implies that there must be an additional representation of
the external head inside the relative clause. In addition to the copy in the base
position, there must be at least another one in the intermediate Spec, CP posi-
tion so that binding by Peter is possible. The copies are indicated in the following
representation:
(32) s
the
[Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i/j
]
k
,
self
won
C
i
I
glaube
think.1s
[
cp
dass
that
de
the
Peter
i
Peter
z.Unrecht
wrongly
tnkt,
thinks
[
cp
Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i/j
self
dass
that
d
the
Marie
j
Mary
Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i/j
self
s
k
it
lssig
cool
ndt ]]
nds
lit.: the picture of him
i
-/herself
i
that I believe Peter
i
wrongly thinks that Mary
j
likes
The external head can be interpreted in the lowest chain link or in the intermediate
Spec, CP position. The latter possibility automatically rules out binding because an
occurrence in that position can only result from movement. Once we need several
copies inside the complement CP, we are effectively dealing with successive-cyclic
movement.
Still, the paradox remains: We have reconstruction into an opaque domain;
within that domain, we have evidence for successive cyclic movement up to the
highest Spec, CP, but it is unclear what happens thereafter. The following section
provides the rst part of the answer.
i,. Reconstruction into intermediate positions for anaphor binding has been disputed for
Standard German, cf. Kiss (2003). I do not share this judgment, neither for Standard German
nor for ZGeven though intermediate binding indeed seems less straightforward than in English.
See Salzmann (2006b) for detailed discussion.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.18 (1121-1167)
i:8 Martin Salzmann
|. Movement in the complement CP derives a predicate
I adopt the conclusion from the previous section that there is successive-cyclic A-
movement in the complement clause. This movement turns the CP into an open
sentence as in tough-movement (Cinque 1990; Den Dikken/Mulder 1992). The
CP is then merged with the matrix verb whereby a complex predicate is formed.
26
This predicate is still unsaturated. It is the proleptic object, more precisely the DP
within the PP, that saturates it. Operator movement can therefore be thought to
license an extra argument. This is illustrated in the following gure:
(33)
[ P[ ] V [ V]
CP CP
DP DP DP
i i i
subject predicate
operator movement
predication
Crucially, the aboutness constituent is only licensed if there is operator move-
ment in the complement. The preposition bi is needed to case-mark the DP. The
choice of bi arguably follows from the semantics. Just like benefactive adjuncts are
governed by for in English, aboutness phrases are governed by bi in ZG. For con-
creteness sake I assume that the proleptic constituent is adjoined to VP. Finally,
the whole complex plus the little v, which inherits the external theta-role of the
verb, is predicated of the syntactic matrix subject.
This gives us the right conguration: First, the verb and the complement
clause form a constituent to the exclusion of the proleptic object; this is shown
in the following asymmetry in VP-topicalization:
(34) a. [Gglaubt,
believed
dass
that
er
he
intellignt
intelligent
isch]
j
is
han
have.1s
i
I
bim
at.the
Peter
Peter
scho
prt
immer
always
t
j
.
I have always believed that Peter is intelligent.
b. *[Bim
at.the
Peter
Peter
gglaubt]
j
believed
han
have.1s
i
I
scho
prt
immer
always
t
j
, dass
that
er
he
intellignt
intelligent
isch.
is
io. The complex predicate is formed in the semantics or rather follows from the semantic
interpretation of the syntactic structure. There is no syntactic complex predicate formation in-
volving incorporation or the like. A detailed exposition of the semantics is beyond the scope
of this paper; see den Dikken & Mulder (1992) or Rezac (2004) for implementations of tough-
movement which in slightly modied form can be extended to the proleptic construction.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.19 (1167-1226)
Second, the proleptic object can be shown to be base-generatedbelowthe syntactic
subject. In the following example, I have made sure that the subject remains in
the vP by using an (negative) indenite and a modal particle that marks the vP
boundary (Diesing 1992). In that position, the subject can bind a pronoun inside
the proleptic object:
(35) dass
that
doch
prt
kne
i
no.one
bi
at
sim
i
his
Soon
son
wrd
would
glaube,
believe
dass
that
er
he
en
a
Verbrcher
criminal
isch
is
that no one
i
would believe of his
i
son that he is a criminal
Third, predication is known to be subject to a c-command requirement. The fol-
lowing example shows that the proleptic DP within the PP can c-command out of
it because it licenses a Negative Polarity Item in the complement clause:
(36) Ich
I
glaub
believe.1s
bi
at
km
no
Hollnder,
Dutchman
dass
that
er
he
au.nume
even
in
one
Euro
Euro
wrd
would
verschwnde.
spill
I believe of no Dutchman that he would spill even one euro.
C-command out of a PP is not infrequent and found for example in the following
sentence:
(37) John thinks of Bill as silly.
I take this to be sufcient evidence that there is the right c-command rela-
tionship for predication to be possible in the proleptic construction. The next
subsection shows that this captures most of the major properties of long rela-
tivization in ZG.
|..: Advantages
First, the operator movement approach explains the obligatoriness of the resump-
tive pronoun discussed and its coindexation with the aboutness-DP (inside the
bi-PP) in (20) under the assumption that the pronoun marks the tail of the Op-
chain and thereby the variable. The absence of a resumptive implies absence of
operator movement so that the proleptic object cannot be licensed.
27
Second, it ex-
plains the opacity of the CP-complement, as discussed in 4.2: operator movement
creates a weak island. Third, it makes an alternative strategy for reconstruction
available, under the assumption that what moves inside the complement CP is ac-
tually an operator with a full copy of the aboutness constituent. I will elaborate
i. I will discuss in 4.5 why the chain link has to be overt.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.20 (1226-1296)
iio Martin Salzmann
on this in 4.4. Fourth, it is directly compatible with the absence of long-distance
superiority discussed in (9). The proleptic object is base-generated in the matrix
clause so that it can be freely reordered with respect to another wh-phrase in the
matrix clause, as German does not show any short-distance superiority effects.
The following subsection discusses strong parallels with tough-movement.
|..i Parallels with tough-movement
I mentioned above that my approach is very similar to what has been proposed (by
some) for tough-movement. This subsection shows that tough-movement behaves
like the proleptic construction in a number of crucial ways.
First, the tough-subject is not independently licensed. As with resumptive pro-
lepsis, it requires operator movement in the complement clause to be licensed. In
the absence of a gap, ungrammaticality results:
(38) *This book is tough for the students to pass the exam. (Cinque 1990: 153)
Second, the tough-clause is an island for extraction. The following examples il-
lustrate this for argument and adjunct extraction (Rezac 2004: 19, his (51a) and
(50a)):
28, 29
(39) a. *[Which violin]
2
is that sonata
1
hard to imagine you playing __
1
on t
2
?
b. *[Howintelligent]
2
is John
1
easy to think of __
1
as t
2
?
Third, there is reconstruction of the tough-subject, mediated by operator move-
ment (den Dikken/Mulder 1992: 310n8):
30
(40) b. [Pictures of himself
i
nude] are tough for me to think that any man
i
would
like __.
a. [Pictures of his
i
wife nude] are tough for me to think hat any man
i
would
show his friends __ .
The correlations are striking and support the proposal advanced here. In 4.4.2 I
will discuss further parallels between the two constructions.
i8. There are certain complications with argument extraction because there is a strong con-
trast between nested and crossing dependencies. With another level of embedding as in the text,
the result is straightforward. See Rezac (2004) for insightful discussion.
i. Since the tough-subject is not directly extracted from the innitival CP, I indicate the
position where it is interpreted via underline instead of trace notation.
o. These examples clearly showthat reconstruction can go below the experiencer, contrary to
what is (wrongly) claimed in Rezac (2004).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.21 (1296-1337)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis ii:
|.| The link between the operator in the complement and the proleptic
object: ellipsis
I have argued so far that operator movement instantiates an alternative strategy
for reconstruction. However, it still needs to be explained how to get a full copy of
the proleptic object, i.e. the DP within the PP, inside the complement CP, which,
as we have seen, is an island. I argue that this comes about via ellipsis, a mecha-
nismthat has gained some popularity in the analysis of certain A-movement types
such as relativization (Sauerland 1998; Citko 2001) and comparatives (Lechner
1999). I mentioned in note 18 that I assume a Matching Analysis for ZG relative
clauses: The copy of the external head in Spec, CP is deleted under identity with
it. The same, I argue, happens to the operator in Spec, CP of the complement in
resumptive prolepsis.
|.|.: Arguments for ellipsis in resumptive prolepsis
There are two major motivations for an ellipsis analysis: First, there are often case-
mismatches between the proleptic object and the operator in Spec, CP (the same
holds for relative clauses, of course): the proleptic object is assigned dative by the
preposition bi whereas the operator can receive any case. Ellipsis has been shown
to be able to handle such mismatches systematically, as in the following sluicing
example where we have accusative in the antecedent and nominative in the elided
IP (Jeroen van Craenenbroeck p.c.):
(41) They told me to go, but I didnt know when I should go
Second, we nd Vehicle Change effects, another peculiar phenomenon associated
with ellipsis, rst discussed in Fiengo & May (1994). It (originally) describes a
mismatch in VP-ellipsis: An R-expression in the antecedent can correspond to a
pronoun in the elided material:
(42) a. *John likes Mary
i
and she
i
does <like her
i
>, too
b. John likes Mary
i
, and she
i
knows that I do <like her
i
>, too
(42a) is ungrammatical despite Vehicle Change because of a Principle B violation.
(42b), however, where one level of embedding is added, is grammatical. Cru-
cially, it has been observed that the same correspondence seems to be possible
between the external head of relatives and its representation in Spec, CP. Several
researchers have pointed out that there seems to be no reconstruction for Principle
C in restrictive relatives (Munn 1994; Sauerland 1998; Sar 1999; Citko 2001) as
opposed to wh-movement. This is not only true of English relatives but also of ZG
relative clauses:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.22 (1337-1424)
iii Martin Salzmann
(43) a. s
the
[Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j
,
Peter
won
C
er
i
he
t
j
am
the
beschte
best
ndt
nds
the picture of Peter
i
that he
i
likes best
b. *[Weles
which
Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j
Peter
ndt
nds
er
j
he
t
j
am
the
beschte?
best
lit.: Which picture of Peter
i
does he
i
like best?
The issue is actually more complex than I can do justice to. Some speakers are
puzzled by examples like (43a) when rst confronted with them. The coreference
is more easy to get if the subject is slightly stressed. This arguably has to do with
the somewhat exceptional anaphoric relation in this case, the antecedent not being
prominent enough (Bianchi 2004). Once this is taken into account, the sentences
are ne for practically all speakers, and there is a clear contrast between relativiza-
tion and wh-movement.
31
The inuence of Vehicle Change is illustrated in the
following simplied LF-representation:
(44) s
the
[Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j,
Peter
[
cp
[Op Fotti vo
picture
im
i
]
j
of
won
he.dat
er
i
C he
[x Fotti
picture
vo
of
im
i
]
j
he.dat
am
the
beschte
best
ndt]
nds
This implies that the binding relationship is the same as in the following sentence:
(45) Er
i
He
ndt
nds
[das
that
Fotti
picture
vo
of
im
i
]
him
am
the
beschte.
best
He likes this picture of him best.
In ZG(and also Standard German, cf. Kiss 2003) pronouns and reexives are more
or less in free variation in picture nouns, and this is exactly why Vehicle Change
leads to an alleviation of Principle C effects.
The crucial observation is that the same lack of reconstruction for Principle C
is found with the proleptic construction as well:
(46) s
the
[Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j
,
Peter
won
C
i
I
t
j
glaub,
think
dass
that
er
i
he
s
j
it
am
the
beschte
best
ndt
nds
the picture of Peter
i
that I think he
i
likes best
:. There seem to be cases where material contained in wh-moved arguments fails to recon-
struct, see Heycock (1995), Romero (1998), Fox (1999) and Sar (1999) for discussion. I tend
to nd the corresponding (Standard/Zurich) German examples relatively bad, though. Fischer
(2004) discusses antireconstruction for Principle C in Standard German and arrives and par-
tially different generalizations. For my purposes, it is sufcient to assume that wh-movement
and relativization differ systematically with respect to reconstruction for Principle C, and this
seems to be generally agreed upon (Sar 1999; Sauerland 2003). See Salzmann (2006b) for
detailed discussion of this issue.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.23 (1424-1504)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis ii
However, this does not yet provide evidence that there is ellipsis between the pro-
leptic object and the operator in Spec, CP because the Vehicle Change effect could
also be due to Vehicle Change in the matrix clause where the external head is also
related to the operator in Spec, CP via ellipsis (under the Matching Analysis). For-
tunately, this ambiguity can be avoided: The proleptic construction is also possible
with wh-movement or topicalization in the matrix clause where the possibility of
Vehicle Change in the matrix clause can be ruled out. Crucially, we nd the same
obviation of Principle C effects:
(47) a. [Bi
at
[dem
this
Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
glaub
think.1s
i
I
t
j
sofort,
immediately
dass
that
er
i
he
s
k
it
guet
good
ndt.
nds
lit.: This picture of Peter
i
, I immediately believe that he
i
likes.
b. [Bi
at
[welem
which
Fotti
picture
vom
of
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
glaubsch
think.2s
t
j
, dass
that
er
i
he
s
k
it
guet
good
ndt?
nds
lit.: Which picture of Peter
i
do you think that he
i
likes?
Here, the lack of Principle C effects can only be due to Vehicle Change between the
proleptic object and the DP in Spec, CP of the embedded clause as shown in the
following LF-representations:
(48) a. [Bi
at
[dem
this
Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
glaub
think.1s
i
I
[Bi
at
[x Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
sofort,
at.once
[
cp
[Op Fotti
picture
vo
of
im
i
]
k
him
dass
that
er
i
he
[x Fotti
picture
vo
of
im
i
]
k
him
s
k
it
guet
good
ndt]
nds
b. [Bi
at
[welem
which
Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
glaubsch,
think.2s
[Bi
at
[x Fotti
picture
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
[
cp
[Op Fotti
picture
vo
of
im
i
]
k
him
dass
that
er
i
he
[x Fotti
picture
vo
of
im
i
]
k
him
s
k
it
guet
good
ndt?
nds
The argument for Vehicle Change can be strengthened even more: there are cases
in German, where a pronoun cannot serve as a coreferential element inside a
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.24 (1504-1577)
ii| Martin Salzmann
picture noun. Instead, a reexive is needed. These cases involve semi-idiomatic
expressions and collocations such as the following:
32
(49) a. Er
i
he
ht
has
e
a
unschmichelhafti
unattering
Minig
opinion
vo
on
*im
i
/siich
i
.
him/self
He
i
has an unattering opinion of *him
i
/himself
i
.
b. Er
i
he
ht
has
es
a
Portrt
portrait
vo
of
*im
i
/siich
i
him/self
ggmaalet.
painted
He
i
painted a portrait of *him
i
/himself
i
.
Crucially, once we test reconstruction for Principle C with such expressions (in
normal restrictive relatives), the result is ungrammatical:
(50) a. *D
the
[Minig
opinion
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j
,
Peter
won
C
er
i
he
t
j
ht,
has
isch
is
unschmichelhaft
unattering
lit.: The opinion of Peter
i
that he
i
has is unattering.
b. *S
the
[Portrt
portrait
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j
,
Peter
won
C
er
i
he
t
j
ggmaalet
painted
ht,
has
isch
is
unvortilhaft.
unfavorable
lit.: The portrait of Peter
i
that he
i
painted is unfavorable.
This follows under an ellipsis approach because the Vehicle-Changed structures
correspond to the base structures with pronouns in (49) as illustrated in the
following representations:
(51) a. *D
the
[Minig
opinion
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j
,
Peter
[
cp
[Op Minig
opinion
vo
of
im
i
]
j
him
won
C
er
i
he
[x Minig
opinion
vo
of
im
i
]
j
him
ht,
has
isch
is
unschmichelhaft].
unattering
lit.: The opinion of Peter
i
that he
i
has is unattering.
b. *S
the
[Portrt
portrait
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
j
,
Peter
[
cp
[Op Portrt
portrait
vo
of
im
i
]
j
him
won
C
er
i
he
[x Portrt
portrait
vo
of
im
i
]
j
him
ggmaalet
painted
ht,
has
isch
is
unvortilhaft.]
unfavorable
lit.: The portrait of Peter
i
that he
i
painted is unfavorable.
The same is found with the proleptic construction (illustrated with topicalization
in the matrix clause to rule out interfering Vehicle Change in the matrix clause):
i. The lack of free variation has been attributed to a coreferential implicit PRO inside the
picture NP, cf. Reinhard & Reuland (1993: 685).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.25 (1577-1635)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis ii,
(52) a. *[Bi
at
[dere
this
Minig
opinion
vom
of.the
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
glaub
think.1s
i
I
nd t
j
,
not
dass
that
er
i
he
si
k
it
ht.
has
lit.: This opinion of Peter
i
I do not believe that he
i
has.
b. *[Bi
at
[dem
this
Portrt
portrait
vom
of
Peter
i
]
k
]
j
Peter
glaub
believe.1s
i
I
nd,
not
dass
that
er
i
he
s
k
it
ggmaalet
painted
ht.
has
Lit.: This portrait of Peter
i
I do not believe that he
i
painted.
The parallelism between normal relativization and resumptive Prolepsis is striking
and lends strong support to the ellipsis approach. See Salzmann (2006b) for more
detailed discussion.
|.|.i Ellipsis in tough-movement
The parallels with tough-movement extend to the side-effects of ellipsis as well,
thereby lending further support to the proposal advanced here and providing a
new handle on reconstruction in tough-movement.
First, it was noted in Wilder (1991: 123) that apart from mismatches in struc-
tural case (the tough-subject bears nominative case while the gap is assigned
accusative case), there are more drastic mismatches as in the following pair:
(53) a. [For him to be top of the class] is hard to believe __.
b. *I cannot believe for him to be top of the class.
The grammaticality of (53a) is surprising if there is a movement relationship be-
tween the tough-subject and the gap, given the ungrammaticality of (53b). Here,
the difference is no longer one of structural case (nominative vs. accusative), but
between a PP and a DP. As with the proleptic construction, such a mismatch can
be handled by ellipsis only.
Second, we nd the same absence of reconstruction for Principle C (Munn
1994: 403):
(54) [Pictures of John
i
] are hard for him
i
to like __.
This follows if there is Vehicle Change between the tough-subject and the operator
in Spec, CP of the innitival clause:
33
(55) Pictures of John
i
are [
cp
[pictures of him
i
]
j
hard for him
i
to like [pictures of
him
i
]
j
.
. English allows coreferential pronouns inside picture NPs just like German, cf. Reinhard &
Reuland (1993: 661).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.26 (1635-1719)
iio Martin Salzmann
Interestingly, we also nd a class of exceptions (idiom-like expressions etc.) were
there seems to be reconstruction for Principle C:
(56) *[Pictures of John
i
] are hard for him
i
to take __.
Crucially, the ungrammaticality follows under a Vehicle Change approach as well
because the Vehicle-Changed basis is bad: the expression take a picture only allows
reexives just like the German cases in (49):
34
(57) John
i
took pictures of *him
i
/himself
i
.
|.|. Summary
The ellipsis approach advocated here nicely captures crucial properties of both
tough-movement and resumptive prolepsis and unies the two constructions in
relevant respects. The derivation in resumptive prolepsis is schematically shown
below:
35
(58)
[ P[ ] V [ V]
CP CP
DP DP DP
i i i
subject predicate
operator movement
predication
ellipsis
|., Why a resumptive?
So far, one crucial asymmetry between the proleptic construction and tough-
movement has not been addressed: The presence/absence of a (resumptive) pro-
noun in the complement clause.
|. Cf. Munn (1994: 402) for a different interpretation of these facts.
,. One of the reviewers has correctly pointed out that it is not innocuous to assume that a
PP-internal DP can be the antecedent of a DP in ellipsis. Since DP ellipsis is rather rare in the
rst place, it is somewhat difcult to provide independent evidence for the ellipsis operation
proposed here. Apart from syntactic amalgamations, which have been claimed to involve DP-
ellipsis (Lakoff 1974), the only instance of DP-ellipsis in ZG I can think of is topic drop, i.e.
ellipsis of a topical element in the preeld (Spec, CP). Topic drop is indeed possible if the an-
tecedent is governed by a grammatical preposition, just like bi in the proleptic construction (the
dropped topic appears in outline):
(i) Hsch
have.2s
a
at
de
the
Mantel
coat
tnkt?
thought
Ja,
yes,
[de
the
Mantel]
coat
han
have
i
I
debii.
with.me
Did you think of the coat? Yes, I have it with me.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.27 (1719-1761)
The fact that we nd resumptive pronouns across the board in ZG resump-
tive prolepsis is surprising in itself because ZG does not require resumptives for
subjects and objects in local relativization, cf. 1.2. Nor does it require resumptive
pronouns in wh-movement or topicalization. In a rst step, it is reasonable to as-
sume a constraint that bars phonetic realization of more then one chain link in
(ZG) A-movement (cf. Merchant 2004 for a similar idea). This correctly rules out
a resumptive in those cases where the operator/highest chain link is overt, as in wh-
movement, free relatives and topicalization. The next step is then to explain why
in certain cases a chain link must be overt.
36
Cases like (1cd) can be handled by
the requirement to spell out oblique case (Bayer et al. 2001; Salzmann 2006a), but
this still leaves subject and direct object resumptives in long-distance relativization
unexplained.
The solution I would like to propose is based on the specicity of the chain.
Cinque (152f.) has argued convincingly that operator movement chains are spe-
cic. This certainly holds for the proleptic construction which requires D-linked
proleptic objects (cf. Salzmann 2006b). Bianchi (2004) in turn has pointed out that
resumption is crosslinguistically most frequent with and often limited to specic
chains. Consequently, there must be a spell-out constraint in ZG that requires the
lexicalization of specic chain links.
In ZG there are three types of A-dependencies without overt operator: Local
relative clauses, comparatives and resumptive prolepsis constructions. Only one of
them, the proleptic construction, features a specic chain and resumptives across
the board. Comparatives abstract over degrees and therefore certainly do not in-
volve a specic/referential dependency; the same holds for restrictive relatives,
where what is left behind is simply a (nonreferential/nonspecic) variable.
37
This gives us the desired result. It does not yet explain why spelling out the
trace is illicit in tough-movement, which, of course, also involves a specic chain,
cf. Cinque (1990: 152f.). I believe that there is nothing particularly insightful to say
about this because languages can differ in partially arbitrary ways when it comes to
o. I have assumed without argument that a pronoun can be the spell-out of a full copy. Why
this should be so is generally poorly understood. Spelling out a full copy is arguably ruled out
for reasons having to do with linearization, cf. Nunes (2001). Spelling out only a pronoun could
be a consequence of the features left behind after copying as in van Koppen (2004). A Big-DP
approach as e.g. in Boeckx (2003) (which was proposed for the equivalent in Standard German
in Salzmann 2005) is a possibility as well. Its major drawback for the data at hand is the fact that
it is no longer easy to state the incompatibility of overt operators (wh, top) and resumptives. See
Salzmann (2006b) for extensive discussion of the issue spell-out vs. Big-DP.
. It remains somewhat unclear how local non-restrictive relatives in ZG t in because they
have been argued to instantiate specic chains yet show the same spell-out possibilities as
restrictives. I leave this for future research.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.28 (1761-1822)
ii8 Martin Salzmann
the spell-out options of chains.
38
On a general level, ZG is a language that in prin-
ciple allows resumptive pronouns whereas English is not. All we nd in English
are intrusive pronouns, which occur in islands to repair otherwise illicit extrac-
tions, cf. Chao & Sells (1983). Since the extraction site of tough- movement is a
transparent domain, a resumptive is not expected.
In ZG resumptive pronouns occur in specic chains without overt operator in
all positions (resumptive prolepsis), in non-specic chains without overt operator
only in oblique positions to realize oblique case (local relativization, compara-
tives). In English, resumptives only (marginally) occur inside islands to repair
locality violations.
,. A remaining issue: Locality and reconstruction
The approach sketched here is confronted with one serious problem that was
rst mentioned in (10), the insensitivity of long relativization to locality con-
straints, a property that follows straightforwardly fromvanRiemsdijks (to appear)
binding approach.
Since other types of A-movement in ZG are sensitive to those constraints, the
insensitivity of resumptive prolepsis comes as a surprise. One initial possibility
can be ruled out: A base-generation approach with the operator binding the pro-
noun (what Aoun et al. 2001 refer to as true resumption) cannot be correct because
one nds reconstruction effects for both anaphors and bound pronouns even into
strong islands, as the following examples show (islands appear in angled brackets):
(59) a. S
the
[Bild
picture
vo
of
siich
i
]
j
,
self
wo
C
all
everyone
lached,
laughs
<
if
wnn de
the
Peter
i
Peter
s
j
it
ziget>,
shows
isch
is
i
in
de
the
Stube.
lounge
lit.: The picture of himself
i
that everyone laughs when Peter
i
shows it, is
in the lounge.
b. Das
that
isch
is
s
the
[Buech
book
ber
about
siich
i
]
j
,
self
won
C
I
I
nd,
nd.1s
dass
that
d <
the
Art,
way
wie
how
de
the
Peter
i
Peter
s
j
it
vermarktet>,
promotes
gruusig
disgusting
isch.
is
8. For instance, nobody asks why Hebrew employs resumptives in relativization. Rather, re-
sumption is an option in the language and is employed in some parts of the A-syntax. Once we
accept the fact that resumption is an option in ZG (and Standard German), the resumptive pro-
lepsis analysis can be fruitfully extended to other constructions like Copy-Raising. See Salzmann
(2006b) for discussion.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.29 (1822-1880)
lit.: This is the book about himself
i
that I think that the way Peter
i
promotes it is disgusting.
c. De
the
[Abschnitt
period
vo
of
sim
i
his
Lbe]
j
,
life
won
C
i
I
glaub,
think.1s
dass
that
< d
the
Erfaarige,
experiences
wo
C
jede
every
Bueb
i
boy
de
j
-bi
it-with
macht,>
makes
seer
very
unterschidlich
different
sind,
are
isch
is
d
the
Pubertt.
puberty
lit.: The period of his
i
life that I think that the experiences that every boy
i
makes during it, are very different, is puberty.
Even more spectacularly, there is evidence for reconstruction into intermediate
positions:
(60) s
the
[Buech
book
ber
about
siich
i/k
]
j
,
self
won
C
i
I
glaub,
think.1s
dass
that
de
the
Hans
i
John
< d
the
Art,
way
wie
how
de
the
Peter
k
Peter
s
j
it
vermarktet, >
promotes
gruusig
disgusting
ndt>, . . .
nds
lit.: the book about himself
i/k
that I think that John
i
nds the way Peter
k
promotes it disgusting
This example is ambiguous and suggests that there are several copies of the external
head inside the complement clause, one of them in a CNPC island. This implies
that there is successive-cyclic movement out of the island. Even if there is a way of
doing reconstruction without movement, cases like (60) will remain unaccounted
for and call for a movement approach.
Aprecise explanation of why movement out of islands is possible in this case is
beyond the scope of this paper (but see Salzmann 2006b for detailed discussion).
I will simply offer a tentative idea: It seems necessary to attribute the possibility
to void locality constraints to the resumptive. I would like to suggest that an overt
pronoun repairs an otherwise illicit chain (just like PF-deletion in sluicing can
repair decient chains, cf. Merchant 2001). This implies that (at least some aspects
of) locality are checked at PF. The fact that it is normally the lowest copy that
is spelled out appears problematic because this is not always the offending copy.
Quite often, the offending copy is higher up, the position from which movement
out of the island takes place (i.e. normally a Spec, CP position). In other words, a
resumptive does not repair a particular copy, but the entire chain. The fact that the
lowest copy is chosen arguably follows from some principle that favors structures
which are treated identically by both the PF and the LF interface (similar to the
notion Minimize Mismatch in Bobaljik 2002): The lowest copy is always relevant
for theta-role assignment and in many cases for the interpretations of restrictions
of quantiers.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.30 (1880-1947)
io Martin Salzmann
Importantly, the possibility to save island violations with a resumptive is re-
stricted by the constraint introduced above that prevents spelling out more than
one chain link. Accordingly, island violations can only be overcome in resump-
tive prolepsis and comparatives (see Salzmann 2006b for discussion of the latter),
but not in wh-movement or topicalization (see Merchant 2004 for similar reason-
ing).
39
o. Resumptive prolepsis in Standard German and Dutch
I mentioned in 2.3 that long relativization in ZG instantiates a more abstract ver-
sion of a construction that functions as an alternative to long-distance relativiza-
tion in both Standard German and Dutch. In that construction, the proleptic ob-
ject (in formof a relative pronoun) is governedby the preposition von/van of and
in German sometimes by bei at.
40
The of -PP is base-generatedin the matrix clause
and undergoes short A-movement. There is no locative relative complementizer
so that deletion of the preposition would be irrecoverable and as a consequence it
is retained. In the complement clause, we nd a resumptive, as in ZG:
41
(61) a. ein
a
Maler,
painter
von
of
dem
i
who.dat
ich
I
glaube,
think
dass
that
Petra
Petra
ihn
i
him
mag
likes
a painter who I think that Petra likes
. I should point out that the facts discussed here are also directly compatible with Boeckx
(2003) model where island-insensitivity is a side-effect of resumption. A detailed evaluation of
that complex approach is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper. See Salzmann (2006b)
for discussion.
|o. It is not fully clear what governs the distribution of von and bei in German. They tend to be
in complementary distribution, bei e.g. being the preference with reexives, but due to a lot of
speaker variation, the picture is somewhat murky. See Salzmann(2006b) for detailed discussion.
|:. In German, regular long-distance relativization is unacceptable for most speakers. In
Dutch, the situation is less clear. For many speakers, both constructions are equally available
while for others there is a certain preference for the proleptic construction. There is some evi-
dence (Lhr 1988: 79) that prescriptive pressure in the 18th and 19th century gave rise to this
construction in German. Long A-movement (referred to as Satzverschrnkung sentence inter-
leaving) was considered illogical in those sources. Nowadays, the construction is pretty much
grammaticalized and extremely frequent. It is surprising in this light that ZG uses a construc-
tion that was forced by prescriptivists since it is well-known that dialects are normally immune
to such pressure. It is indeed the case that in other German dialects long relativization (with or
without relative pronouns and without resumptives) is unproblematic, cf. e.g. Swabian or Hes-
sian German (Schmitt 2005). Interestingly, however, wo-relativization of the ZG type is more
widespread than is usually thought. In less formal registers of Standard German, it is a frequent
albeit stigmatized alternative to the of -version of the proleptic construction:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.31 (1947-2002)
b. het
the
boek
book
waar
i
-van
which-of
ik
I
denk
think
dat
that
Piet
Peter
het
i
it
leuk
cool
vindt
nds
the book I think Peter likes
Since a full discussion of the German and Dutch facts is beyond the scope of this
paper (but see Chapter 3 of Salzmann 2006b) I will simply illustrate the two cru-
cial paradoxical properties of the construction: opacity of the CP-complement and
reconstruction into that complement. The rst pair illustrates reconstruction for
variable binding and Principle A:
(62) a. Die
the
[Periode
period
seines
i
his.gen
Lebens]
j
,
life.gen
von
of
der
j
which
ich
I
glaube,
believe
dass
that
keiner
i
no.one
gerne
likes.to
dar
j
-an
about-it
denkt,
thinks
ist
is
die
the
Pubertt.
puberty
The period of his
i
life I think no one
i
likes to remember is puberty.
b. das
the
[Bild
picture
von
of
sich
i
]
j
,
self
von
of
dem
j
which
ich
I
glaube,
believe
dass
that
Peter
i
Peter
es
j
it
mag
likes
i
that I think Peter
i
likes
The following pair illustrates argument and adjunct extraction from the comple-
ment CP:
(63) a. Ich
I
glaube
believe
von
of
Hans,
John
dass
that
er
he
jedem
every.dat
Schler
student
gute
good
Noten
grades
gibt.
gives
I believe of John that he gives every student good grades.
b.
??
Welchem
which
Schler
1
student
glaubst
think
du
you
von
of
Hans,
John
dass
that
er
he
t
1
gute
good
Noten
grades
gibt?
gives
Which student do you think John gives good grades?
c. *Warum
1
why
glaubst
think
du
you
von
of
Hans,
John
dass
that
er
he
t
1
Peter
Peter
gute
good
Noten
grades
gibt?
gives
Why do you think John gives Peter good grades?
(i) Bin
am
jetzt
now
in
in
Amerika
America
[jemand]
somebody
auf
on
der
the
Spur,
trace
wo
wo
ich
I
vermute,
suspect
dass
that
er
he
ebenfalls
also
mit
with
meiner
my
Familie
family
verwandt
related
sein
be
knnte.
could
I am now tracing someone in America who I suspect could be related to my family.
www.wer-weiss-was.de/theme49/article767487.html
This implies that the wo-strategy is probably used in the entire German speaking area and can
be considered a generally unmarked strategy for long-distance relativization. Its appearance in
ZG is therefore not problematic: ZG simply uses an unmarked option.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.32 (2002-2067)
ii Martin Salzmann
. Conclusion
Long relativization in ZG is a particularly interesting construction because it
has paradoxical properties. There are reconstruction effects into the complement
clause, but at the same time, there is clear evidence that the complement clause
is a barrier and that the proleptic object originates in the matrix clause. The re-
sumptive prolepsis approach presented here manages to reconcile these conicting
properties. Operator movement in the complement clause turns the complement
into a predicate and licenses an extra argument, the proleptic object. This predi-
cation analysis makes an alternative reconstruction strategy available as in tough-
movement and accounts for the opacity of the complement. The link between the
proleptic object and the operator in the complement clause is an ellipsis operation.
Together with concomitant Vehicle Change effects this nicely explains the intricate
Condition C pattern in both the proleptic construction and in tough-movement.
On a more theoretical level, this approach suggests a straightforward way
of handling such exceptional and hitherto ill-understood cases of reconstruction
within a theory that makes crucial use of full copies of the antecedent. It unies re-
sumptive prolepsis with tough-movement in crucial respects and thereby provides
a fresh look at the latter.
Acknowledgments
I would like the thank the audience at CGSW 20 for helpful discussion, especially
Josef Bayer, Marcel den Dikken, Henk van Riemsdijk, and Jan-Wouter Zwart. The
development of many of the ideas presented here has greatly beneted from dis-
cussions with Rajesh Bhatt, Lisa Cheng, Henk van Riemsdijk, Johan Rooryck and
Kathrin Wrth. I am very much indebted to Jrg Fleischer, Kathrin Wrth, and
Tobias Zimmermann for providing detailed judgments. Finally, I would like to
thank the two anonymous reviewers whose corrections and suggestions have lead
to substantial improvement of the paper. All remaining errors are mine.
References
Aoun, J., Choueiri, L., & Hornstein, N. (2001). Resumption, movement, and derivational
economy. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 371403.
Barss, A. (1986). Chains and Anaphoric Dependencies. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2001). Morphological underspecication meets oblique Case:
Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua, 111, 465514.
Bhatt, R. (2002). The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modication.
Natural Language Semantics, 40, 4390.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.33 (2067-2203)
Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis i
Bianchi, V. (1999). Consequences of Antisymmetry. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bianchi, V. (2004). Resumptive relatives and LF chains. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The Cartography of
Syntactic Structures. Volume 2 (pp. 76114). Oxford: OUP.
Bobaljik, J. D. (2002). A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and covert movement. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 197267.
Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chao, W. & Sells, P. (1983). On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. NELS, 13, 4761.
Cinque, G. (1990). A-dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Citko, B. (2001). Deletion under identity in relative clauses. NELS, 31, 131145.
Dieth, E. (1938). Schwyzerttschi Dialktschrift. Leitfaden. Zrich: Orell Fssli Verlag.
Dieth, E. & Schmid-Cadalbert, C. (1986). Schwyzerttschi Dialktschrift. Dieth-Schreibung. (2.
Au. revised and edited by Christian Schmid-Cadalbert). Aarau: Sauerlnder.
Dikken, M. den & Mulder, R. (1992). Tough parasitic gaps. NELS, 22, 303317.
Diesing, M. (1992). Indenites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Fiengo, R. & May, R. (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Fischer, S. (2004). Towards an Optimal Theory of Reexivization. PhD dissertation, University
of Tbingen.
Fleischer, J. (2003). A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. In B. Kortmann (Ed.),
Dialectology meets Typology. Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 211
243). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fox, D. (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic
Inquiry, 30, 157196.
Heck, F. (2005). Gegen Kopfanhebung in deutschen Relativstzen. Handout: GGS Tbingen.
Heycock, C. (1995). Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 547570.
Heycock, C. (2003). On the interaction of adjectival modiers and relative clauses. Ms.:
University of Edinburgh.
Kathol, A. (2001). On the nonexistance of true parasitic gaps in standard German. In P. W.
Culicover & P. M. Postal (Eds.), Parasitic Gaps (pp. 315338). Cambridge MA: The MIT
Press.
Kiss, T. (2003). Die Genese der Ausnahmemetapher. Ms., University of Bochum.
Lakoff, G. (1974). Syntactic amalgams. Papers from the 10th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society.
Lechner, W. (1999). Comparatives and DP-Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Massa-
chusetts, Amherst.
Lhr, R. (1988). Zur Satzverschrnkung im heutigen Deutsch. GAGL, 29, 7487.
McCloskey, J. (1990). Resumptive pronouns, A-binding, and levels of representation in Irish.
In R. Hendrick (Ed.), the Syntax of Modern Celtic Languages (pp. 199248). New York NY:
Academic Press.
Merchant, J. (2001). Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis. Ms., University of Chicago.
Merchant, J. (2004). Resumptivity and non-movement. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 24, 471481.
Munn, A. (1994). A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries. NELS, 24, 397410.
Nunes, J. (2001). Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 303344.
Pesetsky, D. (1998). Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox,
M. McGinnis, & D. Pesetsky (Eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and competition in
syntax (pp. 337383). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Rezac, M. (2004). On tough movement. lingBuzz/000045.
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657720.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:30 F: LA9707.tex / p.34 (2203-2266)
i| Martin Salzmann
Riemsdijk, H. van (1989). Swiss relatives. In D. Jaspers, W. Klooster, Y. Putseys, & P. Seuren
(Eds.), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon (pp. 343354). Dordrecht: Foris.
Riemsdijk, H. van (to appear). Identity avoidance. In R. Freidin, C. Otero, & Maria-Luisa
Zubizarreta (Eds.), Festschrift for Jean Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Romero, M. (1998). Focus and Reconstruction Effects in WH-Phrases. PhD dissertation,
University of Massachusetts.
Rouveret, A. (2002). How are resumptive pronouns linked to the Periphery? In P. Pica & J.
Rooryck (Eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, Volume 2 (pp. 123184). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Sar, K. (1999). Vehicle change and reconstruction in A-chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 587620.
Salzmann, M. (2005). Long A-movement in resumptive disguise. Resumptive Prolepsis
constructions in German and Dutch. Talk given at GLOW 2005, Geneva.
Salzmann, M. (2006a). Resumptive pronouns and matching effects in Zurich German relative
clauses as distributed deletion. Leiden Papers in Linguistics, 3(1), 1750.
Salzmann, M. (2006b). Resumptive Prolepsis. A study in indirect A-dependencies [LOT Disser-
tation Series 136]. Utrecht: LOT.
Sauerland, U. (1998). The Meaning of Chains. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sauerland, U. (2003). Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In K. Schwabe & S.
Winkler (Eds.), The Interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures (pp. 205226).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmitt, V. (2005). Hessische Relativstze. Handout GGS 2005, Tbingen.
Vries, M. de (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Utrecht: LOT.
Weber, A. (1964). Zrichdeutsche Grammatik: Ein Wegweiser zur Guten Mundart. Zrich:
Schweizer Spiegel Verlag.
Wilder, C. (1991). Tough movement constructions. Linguistische Berichte, 132, 115132.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/08/2006; 12:00 F: LA97P3.tex / p.1 (47-74)
v.v1 iii
Historical studies
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.1 (53-172)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality
in the history of English and Germanic*
Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
Universitt Stuttgart
The retreat of be as perfect auxiliary in the history of English is examined. Cor-
pus data are presented showing that the initial advance of have was most closely
connected to a restriction against be in past counterfactuals. Other factors which
have been reported to favor the spread of have are either dependent on the coun-
terfactual effect, or signicantly weaker in comparison. It is argued that the effect
can be traced to the semantics of the be perfect, which denoted resultativity rath-
er than anteriority proper. Related data from other older Germanic and Romance
languages are presented, and nally implications for existing theories of auxiliary
selection stemming from the ndings presented are discussed.
:. Introduction
In earlier stages of its history, English used both have and be as auxiliaries to
form the perfect.
1
In Old English and early Middle English (henceforth OE and
ME), the choice between the two was determined primarily by the properties of
the main predicate, much as in the other older Germanic languages, as well as
modern German, Dutch and Italian. This is exemplied by the two ME examples
* We would like to thank Jonny Butler, Dave Embick, Susann Fischer, Sabine Iatridou, Tony
Kroch, Florian Schfer and the audiences at PLC 29, WCCFL 24 and CGSW 20 as well as two
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions of the work
presented here. Special thanks are due to Florian Janner for his indispensable assistance with the
research. This work was funded by DFG grant no. AL 554/3-1, awarded to the second author.
:. We write have and be in small caps rather than italics to make clear that we are talking here
not about the specic forms from a particular stage of English, but about the perfect auxiliaries
more generally. I.e. have is a cover term for Old English habban, Modern English have and
Modern German haben and their various nite forms, while be is a cover term for Old English
beon/wesan, Modern English be, and Modern German sein and their nite forms, etc.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.2 (172-235)
i8 Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
in 1.
2
In example (1a), the non-agentive, change-of-state verb fall takes be, like
German fallen. By contrast, in (1b), the agentive activity verb ght takes have, like
German kmpfen.
(1) a. as
when
ha
they
reo
three
weren
were
ifolen
fallen
onslepe. . .
asleep. . .
When the three of themhad fallen asleep. . . (CMANCRIW-2,II.272.440)
b. . . . huanne
. . . when
hi
he
he
has
wel
wel
yuote
fought
. . . when he has fought well (CMAYENBI,252.2315)
In the course of the ME period, have rst began to show up with verbs that
previously only took be. According to previous studies, have was favored at this
time especially in various modal and irrealis contexts, past perfects, innitive and
progressive perfects, negatives, and iterative and durative contexts (see especially
Rydn & Brorstrm 1987; Kyt 1997).
3
During the Early Modern English period
(henceforth EModE), be was increasingly restricted to the most common intransi-
tives come and go, before being pushed out here as well over the course of the 18th
and 19th centuries. By around 1900, the modern situation was reached, where
have is the universal perfect auxiliary, and be appears only in relics.
4
This development raises a number of questions, both historical and theoreti-
cal. First, why did have start spreading at the expense of be in the rst place? In
other words, what made English different from German, Dutch and Italian, where
be has been retained in full force up to the present? Second, what is the relevance
of the factors identied by previous researchers which we noted above? Which of
them really had the strongest effects, how are they related to each other, and why
did they favor have in the rst place? Third, why did the change take on the or-
i. The data for this chapter come from the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English
Prose (Taylor et al. 2003), the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edition (Kroch
& Taylor 1999) and the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (Kroch et al. 2005)
The nal line of each example gives the sentence ID as it appears in the original corpus le.
. Notable earlier discussions of the change include Hoffmann (1934), Fridn (1948), Johannis-
son (1958), Mustanoja (1960) Traugott (1972), Zimmermann (1973), Kakietek (1976). Most of
the have-favoring factors mentioned in the text were already identied by one or more of these
scholars. However, we will mostly discuss the details reported by (Rydn &Brorstrm 1987) and
Kyt (1997) because their studies were based on modern techniques of corpus-based research.
Thus their claims are based on explicitly reported and replicable numbers.
|. E.g., be is retained in xed phrases from the (archaic/archaizing) Christian liturgy like Christ
is risen. Its productive occurrence with gone cannot be interpreted as a true holdover of its use
as a perfect auxiliary. In this usage, gone is a (lexicalized) stative adjective, not a real perfect par-
ticiple. Evidence for this is that be is not possible with gone in unambiguously eventive contexts
(They *are/have gone to the store) and of course the fact that it is only go that behaves this way.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.3 (235-281)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English i
der of 800 years to go to completion? Was it really a single, monolithic change, or
are we dealing with a series of potentially independent developments which con-
spired to erode away the use of be? Fourth, what implications does this change
have for general theories of auxiliary selection? Can we integrate the diachronic
data from English into accounts designed to deal with synchronic data from Ger-
man, Dutch and Italian, or will the English data force us to revise or even abandon
such accounts?
The rst question above will serve as our point of departure. We will look at
the rst appearance of have with the verb come one of its earliest clearly iden-
tiable advances onto territory previously held by be and nd that it relates to
a ban on be in past counterfactuals. Our examination of this counterfactual effect
will lead us to at least partial answers to the other questions just posed. We will
propose an account for the effect based on a difference in the semantic status of
be and have, framed in terms of Iatridous (2000) Exclusion theory of counterfac-
tuals, and show how it relates to other factors that inuenced auxiliary selection.
We will present evidence on the chronology of the changes involved, showing that
the spread of have was in fact not a single change and offering a proposal for why
the counterfactual effect became relevant when it did. Finally, we will present data
from other languages that show similar effects and lay out the problems that such
effects present for existing theories of auxiliary selection.
i. The rst appearances of have with come
For a number of reasons, come is an ideal verb to focus on when investigating the
loss of be as a perfect auxiliary in English. First, among the verbs that can take be
in the perfect, it is by far the most frequent, which means that we can get large
enough numbers to allow basic statistical analysis.
5
Second, clauses containing the
past participle of come with a form of be are unambiguous perfects in all peri-
ods. Since come has no transitive uses, there are no formally identical passives, and
there is no uncertainty like we nd with he is gone, as come never develops a lexi-
calized adjectival reading. Third, and perhaps most importantly, come selected be
categorically in the earliest historical periods of English. This means that we can
identify as an innovation the point in time when come rst starts showing up with
auxiliary have. Indeed, this is one of the clearest indicators we have for when the
loss of be in favor of have rst got underway. By examining the earliest examples
,. For example, in our ME corpus, of the 676 perfects with verbs that take be at least once, 273
have come. Next in frequency are go with 107 and fall with 39.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.4 (281-355)
i|o Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
Table 1. Auxiliary selection with come
OE ME EModE
1150 1250 1350 1420 1500 1570 1640
1250 1350 1420 1500 1569 1639 1710
BE 93 64 11 97 75 138 200 72
HAVE 0 1 0 14 11 20 32 25
Total 93 65 11 111 86 158 232 97
% HAVE 0% 1.5% 0% 12.6% 12.8% 12.7% 13.8% 25.8%
of come with have, we may then be able to get an idea of why the change began in
the rst place.
Table 1 shows the incidence of the two auxiliaries with come throughout the
time covered by the three corpora.
6
As alluded to above, be is obligatory with come
in OE, and nearly so through the rst half of ME. have rst appears in signicant
numbers quite suddenly in the third ME period (13501420). Its frequency jumps
immediately to around 13%, but then stays at essentially that same level for several
centuries, well into EModE. In the third and nal period of the EModE corpus
(16401710), have again becomes more common, but even still has only about a
26% share.
Some observations are possible purely on the basis of these numbers. First, it
looks like we can put the beginning of our change in the 3rd period of ME. This is
where have rst shows up with come in signicant numbers, and this is where we
will want to rst focus our attention, to see if there is anything notable about the
examples with have.
7
Second, we have the beginnings of an answer to the third
question posed above about why the loss of be took so long to complete. Appar-
ently, it was not a single gradual change, but rather a series of discrete changes,
each increasing the frequency of have by a small amount. Specically, something
happened around 1350 that rst made have possible with come. After this, things
were stable again for a fewhundred years, before something else happened around
1650 causing another jump in the use of have. We do not yet have reliable data for
the period after 1710 (Late Modern English), so we cannot say whether the subse-
quent development was a single gradual rise in the frequency of have or a series
of further discrete changes. In any case, we have conrmation that at least with
o. In the table, the ME and EModE data are grouped according to the periods distinguished by
the corpora. The three periods distinguished by the OE corpus are collapsed, since there is no
development to be seen there.
. Actually, it may be that the change began in the second period. However, the M2 portion
of the corpus is quite small in general, and perfects with come are particularly rare (note the
uctuation from 71 examples in M1, down to 11 examples in M2 and back up to 116 examples
in M3), so we do not have enough data to tell.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.5 (355-444)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English i|:
Table 2. Perfects of come with HAVE by modality
ME EModE
13501420 14201500 15001569 15701639 16441710
Counterfactuals 5 9 7 9 7
Modals 4 1 2 8 4
Other 5 1 11 15 14
Total 14 11 20 32 25
% Ctf/Modal 64.3% 90.9% 45% 53.1% 44%
come the replacement of be by have was still far from complete at the beginning
of the 18th century.
What was it, then, that caused have to rst start showing up with come in
period M3? As noted above, several factors have been identied by previous re-
searchers as favoring the use of have over be, but the rst examples of come with
have mostly fall into a single category. Of the 14 clauses in question, 9 are in what
we might call modal contexts. 5 are counterfactuals, like (2a), while 4 have overt
modal auxiliaries above a non-nite form of have, like (2b) and (2c).
8
(2) a. And
and
if
if
ow
you
hadest
had
come
come
betyme,
timely
he
he
hade
had
yhade
had
e
the
maistre
master
And if you had come in time, he would have prevailed.
(CMBRUT3,227.4102)
b. . . . she shulde nout haue comen in his sight bi his wille
. . . she would not have come into his sight by his will.
(CMBRUT3,115.3483)
c. . . . sy ei myton litly haue come to blysse
since they might easily have come to bliss
(CMWYCSER,303.1386)
Indeed, the frequency of counterfactuals and modals among perfects of come with
have remains remarkably high throughout the time covered by our corpora, as
shown in Table 2. Each column of the table splits up the perfects of come with
8. Both Arnimvon Stechowand an anonymous reviewer have pointed out that, froma semantic
point of view, in some of these examples the modal seems to scope under the perfect auxiliary.
Thus we would have in effect a perfect of the modal, not a perfect of come, in which case the
appearance of auxiliary have would be unremarkable. However, the morphosyntax of these
sentences clearly places the modal above the perfect auxiliary, and a process which would derive
this from the opposite underlying conguration would violate widely-assumed syntactic prin-
ciples (see Condoravdi 2002; Stowell 2004: for discussion of essentially the same data in Modern
English). What exactly is going on here to derive the apparent mismatch is not entirely clear, but
barring a convincing analysis to the contrary, we will continue to assume that examples of this
kind involve a perfect of come, and are thus of interest.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.6 (444-510)
i|i Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
have for a period into three categories: those with counterfactual semantics, those
with a modal and all others, and indicates what percentage the counterfactual and
modal sentence together make of the total. As we will see below, counterfactual
and modal perfects are nowhere near this common overall, so it would seem that
there is a connection between these contexts and the appearance of have. What
is at rst somewhat bafing is why it is not until the third period of ME that we
start nding come with have in such contexts. If modality favored the use of have
at this time, why didnt it do so earlier? This is a question that we will need to
address if we want to have an explanation for the start of the loss of be in these
environments.
A surprisingly clear answer is available. Perfects with counterfactual meaning
or a modal above the auxiliary turn out to have been extremely rare in early ME,
as shown in Table 3.
9
The top row of each column of the table gives the total num-
ber of intransitive perfects. The next two rows then indicate how many of these
have an overt modal and how many have a counterfactual interpretation, along
with in each case what percent of the total this represents. With come specically,
perfects with modals and counterfactuals are even more rare early on, as shown in
Table 4.
10
So the reason why we dont nd examples like would have come or if he
had come before around 1350 is that there are very few examples at that time of
modal and counterfactual perfects at all.
11
In other words, we do not have would
have come replacing earlier would be come. Indeed, we will see below that the latter
was never actually possible. Rather, it is an innovation here that perfects are being
Table 3. Modal and counterfactual pexfects with all intransitives
11501250 12501350 13501420 14201500
Intrans. perfects 294 145 794 565
Modals 3 (1%) 7 (4.8%) 54 (6.8%) 66 (11.7%)
Counterfactuals 5 (1.7%) 7 (4.8%) 91(11.5%) 83 (14.7%)
. Our investigation of OE on this point is currently in progress. There are no perfects of
come with modals in the OE corpus, and we have not yet found such examples with any other
intransitive verbs. See below for discussion of the counterfactuals.
:o. This lag seems to be due at least in part again to the small number of texts from the M2
period and the low occurrence of come in the few texts that we have.
::. Modals were far more common outside the perfect. Counting clauses of all types, the rate
of occurrence of modals for the four periods of ME was 11501250 10.0%; 12501350 12.5%;
13501420 11.5%; 14201500 11.7%. The differences between these numbers and the corre-
sponding numbers for perfect clauses in Table 3 are statistically signicant for the rst three
periods (M1:
2
26.4, p < .001, M2:
2
7.7, p < .01, M3:
2
17.0, p < .001), but not the fourth, by
which time the modal perfect was fully established.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.7 (510-623)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English i|
Table 4. Modal and counterfactual perfects with come
11501250 12501350 13501420 14201500
Perfects of come 65 11 111 86
Modals 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (3.6%) 1 (1.2%)
Counterfactuals 2 (3.1%) 0 (0%) 5 (4.5%) 9 (10.4%)
used in modal contexts at all. In OE and early ME, modal and counterfac-
tual clauses were expressed with simple past subjunctive forms, potentially with
modals, but without any perfect morphosyntax (see e.g. Mitchell 1985: 85), as in
the following OE example (from Molencki 2000):
(3) ac
but
hit
it
wre
were
to
too
hrdlic
quick
gif
if
he
he
a
then
on
on
cildcradole
child-cradle
acweald
killed
wurde
were
but it would have been too early if he had been killed in his cradle then
(CHom i.82.28).
This change is just one part of the general expansion of the English auxiliary system
and the spread of the perfect into new semantic contexts (see e.g. Traugott 1972;
Warner 1993; Elsness 1997 for discussion of these developments).
This provides us with the beginnings of an understanding of our change. In the
rst half of ME, perfects rst start being used in counterfactual and modal clauses,
as part of the general expansion of the auxiliary system. At the same time, we see
auxiliary have showing up with come, a verb that previously appeared only with
be. Acomparison of Tables 2 and 3 shows that these two innovations are related by
more than just relative chronology. The frequency of counterfactuals and modals
among perfects of come with auxiliary have is far higher than it is among other
perfect intransitives: between 1350 and 1420, 64.3% of have + come perfects are
counterfactuals or modals, compared with only 18.3% of other intransitive per-
fects; between 1420 and 1500 the frequencies are 90.9% and 26.4%.
12
Thus we can
hypothesize that this initial spread of have was in fact due (at least in part) to the
increasing use of perfects in modal contexts. As noted in the Introduction, the fact
that modals and counterfactuals favored have in early English has been reported
by previous researchers (see Fridn 1948; Mustanoja 1960; Traugott 1972; Rydn &
Brorstrm1987; Kyt 1997; Lipson 1999). However, the tight relationship between
the rst appearance of such contexts in the perfect and the very rst advances of
have has not to our knowledge been made explicit until now.
:i. The percentages reported here for other intransitive perfects are slightly lower than what
one would get by adding the percentages for modals and counterfactuals in Table 3, because the
latter are for all intransitive perfects, while the former exclude the perfects of come with have,
since it is their behavior we are comparing. The differences are again statistically signicant: for
M3
2
= 20.2, p < 0.001; for M4
2
= 24.1, p < 0.001.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.8 (623-663)
i|| Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
. Isolating the counterfactual effect
In order to further develop our tentative explanation for the rst stage of the loss
of be, we need a better understanding of the effect that modal contexts had on aux-
iliary selection. To begin with, we need to more precisely characterize what modal
context means. To this point, we have been using this term to refer collectively
to what look like two distinct types of perfect clauses those with counterfactual
semantics and those with an overt modal above the perfect auxiliary. We have kept
the two clause types separate because they are identied in the corpus on the ba-
sis of different criteria, but have treated them together because they seem to have
something in common. However, if we want to gure out how and why these fac-
tors really affect auxiliary selection, we will have to gure out what unies them
and distinguishes them from others which one might expect to also fall into the
category of modal.
To begin with, let us clarify exactly what we mean by counterfactual. Into
this category we place only those clauses where the implication is clearly that the
proposition being considered does not (or did not) hold. This includes the fol-
lowing types, exemplied by the sentences in (12b):
13
counterfactual conditionals,
both the antecedent clause (4a) and the consequent clause (4b); clauses which have
essentially the function of the consequent of a counterfactual conditional, but have
no conditional antecedent ((4c), where else essentially means something like if I
were not satised); and counterfactual wishes (4d).
(4) a. and if they had come sooner, they could haue holpen them.
and if they had come sooner, they could have helped them.
(GIFFORD-E2-P2,G3V.246)
b. he had never come to himself . . . if he had not met with this allay
he would never have come to himself . . . if he had not met with this dis-
traction
(BEHN-E3-H,189.165)
c. I am satisfyd with every thing that pleases you; else I had not come to Town
at all.
I amsatised with everything that pleases you; otherwise I wouldnt have
come to town at all.
(VANBR-E3-H,32.10,11)
:. The examples are taken from EModE because it is easier to understand than ME and is thus
better suited for demonstration purposes. For consistency, all the examples have come as the
main verb, with the exception of (4d), where an example with go is used because there are no
counterfactual wishes with come in the EModE corpus.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.9 (663-788)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English i|,
d. And he . . . will wish he had with the poore peoples children gon barefoot.
And he . . . will wish he had gone barefoot with the poor peoples chil-
dren. (LOCKE-E3-P1,35.46)
Now, as it turns out, a division between counterfactual clauses and clauses with
modals is unwarranted for ME. Consider again the sentences exemplifying perfects
with modals above, repeated here in (5).
(5) a. . . . she shulde nout haue comen in his sight bi his wille
. . . she would not have come into sight by his will.
(CMBRUT3,115.3483)
b. . . . sy ei myton litly haue come to blysse
since they might easily have come to bliss
(CMWYCSER,303.1386)
Sentence (5a) is talking about a situation where the woman in question has come
into the man in questions sight, thus the statement that she would not have done
so by his will is a counterfactual. Similarly, sentence (5b) is about the damned, i.e.
people who have not come to bliss, but could have easily done so if they had be-
haved properly. Again, it is a counterfactual. Indeed, all of the clauses containing
modals above intransitive perfects in our ME corpus turn out to have counterfac-
tual semantics like this. In other words, at this stage we dont yet nd examples
like He must have come to London or She may have gone home, where the modal ex-
presses some epistemic meaning and is not counterfactual. It is not entirely clear
why this should be.
14
In any case, this allows us to hypothesize that what favored
have was specically counterfactuality, and not an ill-dened modality category
that subsumes counterfactuals and clauses with modals. If this is correct, then
once non-counterfactual perfects with modals start to show up in the language,
we might expect them to be able to take auxiliary be. Such sentences do begin
to appear (though still in small numbers) in EModE, and as predicted, we nd
auxiliary be with a few of them:
15
(6) a. Your Mother, you know, will be gone to Church.
(FARQUHAR-E3-P2,24.173)
b. My Spouse will be got to the Ale-house with his Scoundrels.
(FARQUHAR-E3-P2,24.174)
:|. We can speculate that this is just another facet of the process by which the modern auxiliary
system was gradually constructed. At rst no modals were possible above the perfect, then only
a restricted type which expressed little more than counterfactuality, and only later the full array
of epistemic modals.
:,. Note that we cannot analyze (6a) as an instance of the non-perfect use of be gone familiar
from Modern English due to the presence of the goal PP to Church.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.10 (788-807)
i|o Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
Table 5. ME perfect auxiliary selection by modality
BE HAVE % BE
Counterfactuals 3 183 1.6%
Modals 0 130 0
All other intransitives 540 942 36.4%
Table 6. EModE perfect auxiliary selection by modality
BE HAVE % BE
Non-modal ctf 3 344 0.9%
Modal ctf 1 246 0.4%
Now that we have identied counterfactuality as the relevant factor, we can con-
sider just how strong its effect was. In order to do this, we will have to reverse the
perspective we took on the data in the last section. Rather than looking at perfects
with have and guring out how many of them are counterfactual, we must re-
strict our attention to the counterfactual perfects and see how the two auxiliaries
are distributed among them. The results of this investigation are quite striking.
Table 5 covers all ME intransitive perfects i.e. not just those with come, but with
all intransitive verbs comparing the frequency of the two auxiliaries in coun-
terfactual environments with their frequency elsewhere.
16
What we nd is that be
is extremely rare with counterfactual perfects, whether an overt modal is present
or not. It should be noted that an effect this categorical is remarkable for ME,
which is otherwise known for showing variation, particularly in areas where there
is change in progress. The effect remains just as strong through EModE, as shown
in Table 6.
17
The counterfactual effect is thus not just a contributing factor in the
selection of perfect auxiliaries, it is the determining factor in those clauses where it
is at work.
Recall now that previous researchers have listed several other factors along
with counterfactuals and modals as favoring the spread of have at the expense of
be. While much of the relevant work in particular that of Rydn & Brorstrm
(1987) and Kyt (1997) achieves a high quality of description, providing de-
tailed statistical data on the various inuencing factors, we would argue that it
fails to explain why the various factors are relevant and how they are related to
:o. We continue to list clauses with modals separately fromthe other counterfactuals because, as
noted above, the categories are formally distinct and thus were identied by different methods.
:. In Section 4 we will argue that most of the apparent counterexamples here are actually
present counterfactuals, and that the counterfactual effect is in fact properly restricted to (the
far more common) past counterfactuals.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.11 (807-903)
each other. We propose to address this issue by approaching the other factors from
the perspective of the counterfactual effect. It is reasonable to choose this effect as
the pivot precisely because it is the only one which is anywhere near categorical.
Proceeding in this way turns out to be productive, since some of the other factors
are in fact related to counterfactuality. In particular, the higher frequency of have
in certain contexts is due at least in part to the fact that these contexts tend to
co-occur with counterfactuality.
This is most clearly the case for the pluperfect. Kyt (1997), for example,
claims that [t]he past perfect, which highlights the perfectivity of action, paved
the way for the rise of have. . . From early on, the use of have is more common
in past perfect than in present perfect constructions [52f.]. Indeed, the numbers
from her study of corpora covering the time from Late ME up to the present indi-
cate just this, with have showing up in 55% of the past perfect clauses compared
to 47% in the present perfect.
18
However, there is the potential here for interfer-
ence from the counterfactual effect. Formally speaking, all counterfactual perfects
that do not involve a modal are in fact pluperfects, with the past participle below a
past formof the perfect auxiliary. That is, only If I had gone can be a counterfactual
conditional. Something like If I have gone may be a conditional perfect, but can-
not be counterfactual.
19
Given our nding that counterfactual perfects always take
have, they will skew the overall frequency of have with formal pluperfects. Since
present perfects are never counterfactual, what we really want to know is, how do
they compare with non-counterfactual pluperfects? As the examples in 7 show, we
do nd come with both be and have in this context.
(7) a. For his tyme was not come to dyen at e Pasc at he hadde ordeynot
For his time had not come to die at the passover that he had ordained.
(CMWYCSER,I,414.3405)
b. For also thei hadden comun to the feeste dai
For they had also come to the feast day.
(CMNTEST,IV,40.334)
Table 7. ME non-counterfactual present and past perfects
BE HAVE % BE
Pluperfects 331 424 43.8%
Present perfects 189 469 28.7%
:8. The difference in the percentages may seem small, but given the large number of examples
(N = 2130), it is highly statistically signicant:
2
= 18.5, p < 0.001.
:. Of course, If I went can be a (present) counterfactual conditional as well, but is irrelevant to
the discussion since it is not a perfect. See section 4 for further discussion.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.12 (903-977)
i|8 Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
Table 8. EModE non-counterfactual present and past perfects
BE HAVE % BE
Pluperfects 364 805 31.1%
Present perfects 504 1267 28.5%
Table 9. Non-counterfactual perfects, negative vs. non-negative
BE HAVE % BE
ME Negative 12 50 19.4%
Non-negative 528 942 35.9%
EModE Negative 58 124 31.9%
Non-negative 928 2238 29.3%
The relative frequency of the two auxiliaries with intransitives in non-counterfac-
tual clauses in ME is given in Table 7. As it turns out, the pluperfect actually
disfavors have once we exclude counterfactuals, and the difference is statistically
signicant (
2
=34.5, p <.001). In EModE, the frequency of have is still nominally
lower with non-counterfactual pluperfects than with non-counterfactual present
perfects, as shown in Table 8. In this case, however, the difference is not statistically
signicant (
2
= 2.43, p < .20). In Section 4 we will make a suggestion as to why
be should have appeared more often in the past than in the present perfect. What
is relevant for the moment is that it is not correct that the pluperfect itself favored
the use of have, at least not in the corpora at our disposal.
Negation has also been claimed to favor have, with Kyt (1997) reporting that
68% of negative perfects take have, compared to 53% of afrmatives. Again, how-
ever, we have to be on the lookout for interference from the counterfactual effect,
since negation is common with counterfactuals of the type If Jones hadnt X he
wouldnt have Y. Indeed, in our ME corpus, we nd that 37.4% of negative clauses
are counterfactuals, compared to only 15.9% of non-negative clauses. In EModE,
32.6%of negatives are counterfactuals, compared to 13.8%of non-negatives.
20
Ex-
cluding the counterfactuals from the negatives we get the numbers in Table 9. A
statistically signicant difference between negative and non-negative contexts re-
mains in ME (
2
= 7.2, p < .01), but in EModE they are essentially identical (
2
=
.54). At least in ME, then, negation does seem to have favored have, though not
nearly as strongly as counterfactuality.
Another category which has been claimed to strongly favor have is the perfect
innitive. Of course, one of the main contexts where perfects show up with non-
nite forms of the auxiliary is below modals. In order to avoid interference from
io. These differences are again statistically signicant. For ME,
2
= 30.3, p < .001. For EModE,
2
= 69.6, p < .001.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.13 (977-1042)
Table 10. EModE perfect auxiliary selection with sirnple innitives
BE HAVE % BE
Simple innitives 20 127 13.6%
the counterfactuality effect, we must exclude these and restrict our attention to
examples like those in (8):
(8) a. to take grete sham & conscyence whan we rede them to haue doon so
zelously in goddys cause
. . . to take great shame and conscience when we read that they have acted
so zealously in Gods cause
(CMFITZJA,B1V.108)
b. to make vnable prelatis eithir curatis in the chirche of God, is to haue come
to the hi+gest degree of trespasis
. . . to make people who are incompetent prelates or curates in the church
of God is to have come to the highest degree of trespasses.
(CMPURVEY,I,32.1568)
An independent preference for have remains here as well. Kyt (1997) reports that
in her corpora, have shows up with 87% of the innitives compared to only 51%
of all the other perfects. In our ME corpus, we found a total of 30 non-modal per-
fect innitives, and only one of these has auxiliary be. There thus seems to be a
strong effect (though be is not completely ruled out), but with such low numbers
we cannot say much more than that. In EModE, simple innitive perfects become
far more common, yielding numbers large enough to allow more condent in-
terpretation. Again, we nd a clear tendency to favor have, as shown in Table 10,
though not as drastic as that in ME. The difference between innitives and all other
intransitives here is statistically signicant (
2
= 10.8, p < .01). Nonetheless, we
again do not have anything like the categorical effect found with counterfactuals.
21
i:. A possible explanation for the numbers here comes from a peculiar type of perfect innitive
found in older English that is unfamiliar to the Modern language, where the perfect seems to be
showing up in the embedded non-nite clause due to something like a sequence of tense effect:
i. for he was commaundyd to have londyd at Calys by the kynge
For he was commanded to land at Calais by the king.
(CMGREGOR,206.1781)
A full 17 of the 30 innitives we have found in ME are of this type. Under the analysis we will
propose in Section 4, it is unsurprising that the be perfect would be inappropriate here, since we
will claim that it does not encode a past semantics in the way that the have perfect does.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.14 (1042-1113)
i,o Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
Table 11. EModE perfect auxiliary selection with pxesent participle auxiliary
BE HAVE % BE
Progressives 50 87 38.5%
Finally, Rydn &Brorstrm(1987) have reported that have was favoredalso in
perfects where the auxiliary is in the formof a present participle, as in the examples
in (9).
(9) a. he approved extremely of your having come away
(DRUMMOND-E3-P1,2.4,201.37)
b. and at night being come to the Towne, I found good ordinary Countrey en-
tertainment
(JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,128.C2.9)
Here there is no formal connection to counterfactuals, so interference of the kind
we found with modals and innitives shouldnt be an issue. However, at least
within our corpora, the present participle form seems to favor be, not have. We
found no examples of this kind in the ME corpus, but there were 137 in EModE,
the numbers for which are given in Table 11. Again, the difference shown here is
statistically signicant (
2
= 9.8, p < .01). Kyt (1997) also nds a minor prefer-
ence for be during EModE, but in later periods this disappears. Since Rydn &
Brorstrm (1987) also made their claim on the basis of data from Late Modern
English, this may partly explain the discrepancy with our ndings. In any case,
whatever effects do show up here are relatively minor.
To sum up then, there are indeed several factors that correlate with higher
frequencies of have. However, the counterfactual effect stands clearly apart from
the others, being the only one that is essentially categorical. Negative and innitive
perfects do tend to use have more than afrmative and nite ones do, but these
are tendencies, not hard and fast rules. Other factors that have been claimed to
have such an effect, like the past perfect and the progressive, turn out not to do
so at all, once interference from the counterfactual effect is removed. Our strategy,
then, will be to rst attempt to explain the counterfactual effect, and then to see if
what we learn from that can shed light on the other factors.
|. Towards an explanation
Three central points emerge from the discussion thus far which must inform the
search for a convincing explanation of the counterfactual effect. First, the effect is
essentially categorical. This points toward a solution in terms of sharply-dened
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.15 (1113-1184)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English i,:
syntactic or semantic categories. Second, counterfactuality is of a different type
than the other (primarily lexical) factors involved in auxiliary selection. In struc-
tural/scopal terms, things like argument structure, agentivity and lexical aspect
are encoded fairly low, presumably within the VP/P region, while counterfac-
tuality is presumably encoded fairly high, probably somewhere in the IP region.
Furthermore, counterfactuality overrides these other factors. That is, a counter-
factual perfect will take auxiliary have, no matter what the main verb is. Thus its
effect would seem to be operating independently, on a different level than normal
selection. Third, languages like German, Italian and Dutch show no sign of the
effect. So whatever we suggest to account for older English must be able to handle
this variation, and should ultimately be relatable to other ways in which (Middle)
English perfects differ from perfects in these other languages.
With these points in mind, we would like to propose an analysis that makes
use of Iatridous (2000) theory of counterfactuals. Iatridous point of departure
is the fact that counterfactuality is marked by the same morphology that is used
to encode past tense in languages like English and Greek. Thus for example in
sentence (10a), the past form had encodes counterfactuality, not a temporal past
interpretation. That is, the if clause is about having (or not having) a car now, not
about having a car in the past.
(10) a. If she had a car, we could drive to Vegas.
b. If she had had a car, we would have driven to Vegas.
If we want to talk about having a car in the past, we need a second layer of past
morphology, resulting in a pluperfect, as in (10b). In order to account for these
data, Iatridou proposes that past morphology is not directly tied to past seman-
tics. Rather, it spells out what she calls an Exclusion feature (ExclF), and this ExclF
has the more abstract semantics given in (11). It encodes an exclusion relationship
between some aspect x of the topic and the same aspect x of the utterance. This x
can vary over times and possible worlds, yielding the two instantiations of (11) in
(12):
(11) T(x) excludes C(x)
(12) a. The topic time excludes the utterance time.
b. The topic worlds exclude the utterance world.
When x ranges over times, we get the past tense interpretation in (12a). That is, the
time interval(s) that are being talked about in the utterance do not include the time
at which the utterance is made. Iatridou argues that this results in a past, because
a future interpretation is unavailable for independent reasons. On the other hand,
when x ranges over possible worlds, we get the counterfactual interpretation in
(12b). In other words, the world in which the utterance is made is not included in
the set of possible worlds being talked about.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.16 (1184-1224)
i,i Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
What is relevant for us is that this ExclF which can yield either a past or a
counterfactual can only come fromthe nite tense marking, not fromperfect mor-
phology. A present perfect form like If she has had a car cannot be used to convey
counterfactuality. This goes for older English as well as the modern language: we
have found no formal present perfects with counterfactual meaning in the cor-
pora. This means that in a past counterfactual pluperfect like If she had had a car,
it must be the perfect morphology which contributes the temporal past meaning,
since the nite tense-marking is handling counterfactuality. Now, since the per-
fect is periphrastic, we can ask which morpho-syntactic portion of it is actually
responsible for this anteriority, the auxiliary or the past participle. Iatridou et al.
(2003) have argued that in Modern English it is the auxiliary, since the participle
has no such past meaning when it occurs independently, e.g. in the passive. This
also holds for the ME and EModE passive, thus it is reasonable to assume that in
the older stages of the language it was the auxiliary as well. Now, if the temporal
meaning of the perfect is localized in the auxiliary, it would not be that surprising
for different auxiliaries to have different temporal properties, i.e. for perfects with
be to be different from those with have in this respect. We would like to propose
that this was in fact the case, and that it is this difference which was responsible for
the counterfactual effect and other restrictions on the older English be perfect.
Consider that the historical source of the be perfect is a resultative participle
predicated of the subject, under a copula (see e.g. Traugott 1972: 93, among many
others). The anteriority in such a construction originally comes by implication
fromwhat it means to have a resultative state. I.e. it comes fromthe meaning of the
participle, not from any temporal semantic features on the auxiliary.
22
Of course,
a be + participle construction can grammaticalize and become something other
than the sum of its original parts. In the familiar modern European languages
like German and French such structures are clearly no longer simple resultative
stative constructions, but have come to have more general perfect or even simple
past semantics. German examples like (13a) and the rst conjunct of (13b), e.g.,
cannot be interpreted as describing resultant states:
ii. One might object that the same is true of the historical source of the have perfect, and that
we thus cannot explain the different behavior with have and be in this way. However, while
this is true for very early stages in the development of the have perfect, it has more clearly un-
dergone subsequent grammaticalization away from its historical source than the be perfect has.
A sentence like I have worked with an unergative verb cannot be interpreted along the lines of
the presumed ancestor of the have perfect, something like I have the can opened. On the other
hand, be perfects like I am come, at least at the relevant stages of English, could still be inter-
preted compositionally as composed of a resultative stative participle plus copula. See Mustanoja
(1960: 500) for some related remarks.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.17 (1224-1279)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English i,
(13) a. Er
He
ist
is
zehn
ten
Jahre
years
im
in.the
Ausland
outland
geblieben.
stayed
He stayed abroad for ten years.
b. Er
he
ist
is
gegangen
gone
und
and
dann
then
gleich
immediately
wieder
again
zurckgekommen.
back.come
He left and then came right back.
There is evidence, however, that the be perfect in ME had not undergone this
development.
First, a factor noted by other researchers to favor have is the presence of it-
erative or durative semantics. We have waited to discuss it until now because it
only makes sense in the light of the idea that the be perfect is necessarily resulta-
tive. Iteratives and duratives are about the eventuality expressed by the verb, not
its resultant state, so we can expect that they will be incompatible with the be per-
fect.
23
Second, recall that be shows up at a higher rate in pluperfects than it does
in present perfects in ME, once we abstract away from the counterfactual effect.
Let us now consider those data the other way around. Given a particular perfect
auxiliary, what is the frequency of the pluperfect vs. the present perfect? Whereas
only 47.5%of perfects with have show a past tense formof the auxiliary (N=893),
a full 63.7% of those with be do (N=520). We have not investigated these data in
enough detail to say with certainty what is going on here, but the difference can
be explained if the have and be perfects differ in whether or not they introduce
an anteriority relation. We can imagine that in instances where the pastness of an
eventuality had to be made explicit, the simple be perfect did not sufce and had
to be augmented with additional past morphology contributing an ExclF. With
the have perfect this was not necessary, since have itself could contribute such a
feature.
If this assessment of the two perfect auxiliaries is correct for the relevant pe-
riod of ME, then the counterfactual effect can be explained. The be + participle
structure simply contains no specication for pastness. The resultativity of the
participle is sufcient to supply an implication of anteriority in certain contexts,
but the construction will not be appropriate in instances where a real past is re-
quired. This is of course exactly the situation in a past counterfactual. Consider
again the relevant clause of ex. (2a), repeated as (14):
(14) And if ow hadest come betyme. . .
The nite past tense morphology on hadest supplies the ExclF, which contributes
counterfactuality to the interpretation. The past meaning is then contributed by
i. See McFadden & Alexiadou (2006) for detailed discussion of the semantics of the older
English be perfect and its interaction with iterativity and durativity.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.18 (1279-1342)
i,| Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
have itself, and all is well. Consider, however, what would happen with a parallel
example with be. Here we would have the ExclF supplied by the past morphology,
but no true past meaning contributed from below. If the ExclF is interpreted tem-
porally, this yields the past of a be perfect, i.e. a resultative state in the past, with
no counterfactual meaning, as in example (1a) above and (15) below:
(15) And whan nyght was comyn, e lordes & ladies wente to bedde
And when night had come, the lords and ladies went to bed.
(CMBRUT3,3.52)
In principle, the ExclF of the past form of be should also be interpretable as a
counterfactual instead of a past if our analysis is correct. This would yield the
counterfactual of a be perfect rather than the past of a be perfect. Given our claims
about the be perfect, this should mean something along the lines of if you were
(now) in the result state of coming, which is not the same thing as the true past
counterfactual if you had come. Of course, utterances with such a semantics
would only be appropriate under fairly marked circumstances, so we do not ex-
pect them to be very common, but they do seemto exist. In particular, most of the
seven examples of be with counterfactual perfects reported in Tables 5 and 6 can
be interpreted in just this way. Consider e.g. those in (16):
24
(16) a. and this is to singnee the certeynte of profecie, whos bifalling of tyme to
comynge is so certeyn, as if it were passid now
and this is to signify the certainty of prophecy, the happening of which
in time to come is as certain as if it had already happened now.
(CMPURVEY,I,55.2214)
b. The Fellow looks as if he were broke out of Bedlam.
The fellow looks as though he had broken out of Bedlam (the infamous
London psychiatric hospital) (FARQUHAR-E3-H,60.477)
c. yf he had your sowle I wene he shold be gone.
If he had your soul, I think he would have/be gone.
(MERRYTAL-E1-P1,10.128)
i|. Note that in the 1st and 3rd persons singular, be has a distinct past subjunctive form were
which contrasts with the past indicative was, and that it is this subjunctive form which shows
up in counterfactuals in older English (as well as conservative varieties of Modern English).
See Iatridou (2000) for arguments on the basis of cross-linguistic evidence that it is still the past
morphology that contributes the counterfactual semantics in such cases, not the subjunctive. All
that is really important for us is that (at least at this stage of the language) a past subjunctive form
cannot by itself contribute the equivalent of two ExclF features, i.e. contribute both past and
counterfactual interpretation. Perfect morphosyntax under the past subjunctive morphology is
required to contribute the past semantics.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.19 (1342-1389)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English i,,
The correct interpretation of these sentences is not certain, but present counter-
factual readings are plausible or even likely. In the ME sentence (16a), the adverb
now suggests a present state rather than a past eventuality. In the EModE (16b), the
present tense in the main clause points to a present counterfactual interpretation
of the embedded clause. Finally, in (16c), the antecedent clause yf he had your sowle
looks like a present counterfactual, since it is formally a simple past rather than a
pluperfect, thus we expect the consequent clause to be a present counterfactual as
well.
,. Some cross-linguistic notes
As noted above, none of the modern European languages that have formed the
basis for theoretical discussion of perfect auxiliary selection have been reported
to show anything like the counterfactual effect. The choice between have and be
there seems to depend only on factors related to argument structure, telicity and
other things determined within the P. Higher clausal properties from the tense
and mood area are irrelevant. However, older English is not unique in showing
sensitivity to such things. Indeed, there is mounting evidence that this sort of in-
teraction while perhaps not the norm is not uncommon. In this section we will
briey discuss the examples we have found of things like the counterfactual effect
in other languages and discuss how such data bear on our analysis.
A preference for have in modal contexts in older Germanic languages other
than English was already noted by Kern (1912) and Johannisson (1958). Shan-
non (1995), largely following Kern, discusses the effects of modality on auxiliary
selection in Middle Dutch and Middle Low German, noting for Middle Dutch
a strong, though by no means absolute tendency for mutative verbs, which of
course are otherwise normally conjugated with be in the perfect, to take have in
irrealis contexts [p. 138]. Note especially example (17b), where the verb fall ap-
pears with be in the realis matrix clause, but have in the counterfactual (modal)
embedded clause:
(17) a. haddi
had he
hem
them
oec
also
niet
not
ontlopen,
escaped,
si
they
haddent. . .
had. . .
Had he also not escaped from them, they would have. . .
b. veel
many
luden
people
sijn
are
ghevallen
fallen
. . . die
. . . who
niet
not
ghevallen
fallen
souden
would
hebben
have
dan. . .
but
Many people have fallen . . . who would not have fallen, but. . .
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.20 (1389-1449)
i,o Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
Johannisson (1958: 108) identies the subjunctive expressing unreality as a key
factor favoring have with verbs that otherwise took be in Old Swedish (though,
interestingly enough, not in Old West Norse).
A similar pattern is reported by Ledgeway (2003) for 14th and 15th century
Neapolitan. At that time, be was the rule with unaccusatives and certain types of
reexives, but was frequently replaced by have in modal contexts. Like English,
Neapolitan ended up completely losing be as a perfect auxiliary (unlike standard
Italian), and Ledgeway argues that the modal effect was the rst step on the way to
that change. Note, on the other hand, that Dutch did not ultimately lose be, but
rather lost the counterfactual effect. So it seems that such an effect can combine
with other changes to lead to the loss of be, but need not necessarily do so. This
is consistent with the pattern shown in Table 1, where the appearance of have in
counterfactuals correlates with just one of the two discrete jumps in the frequency
of have with come.
The fact that the counterfactual effect has been found in a number of older Eu-
ropean languages, all spoken approximately 600700 years ago, is noteworthy, and
may lend some additional support to the analysis we have proposed. A reasonable
interpretation of the situation, assuming that it is not an accident, is that the coun-
terfactual effect is a product of a fairly early stage in the grammaticalization of the
be perfect.
25
In fact, this is essentially what we have been claiming. The counter-
factual effect results because the ME and EModE be perfect remains at least fairly
close to its resultative origins and does not develop true past semantics the way
the have perfect does. The other European languages whose be perfects have the
same historical source would be expected to go through a similar stage, though
they may differ in their subsequent development. In Modern German, Dutch and
Italian, the be perfect has clearly developed further into a true perfect or even sim-
ple past, functioning as a full analog to the have perfect. Thus there is no problem
with using auxiliary be in past counterfactuals, as in the German example in (18)
(modeled on (14)):
(18) Wenn
if
du
you
pnktlich
timely
gekommen
come
wrest. . .
were
If you had come on time. . .
We can hypothesize that Middle Dutch, Middle Low German, Old Swedish and
15th century Neapolitan, like ME and EModE, had not (yet) reached this stage in
the development of the be perfect. It remained an essentially resultative construc-
i,. It is not really problematic that we are dealing with two Germanic languages and one Ro-
mance. While it is true that these languages did not inherit the periphrastic perfect from a
common ancestor, it is well known that the constructions have developed largely in parallel
in them, presumably due at least in part to contact.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.21 (1449-1522)
tion, and thus was inappropriate for past counterfactuals. In ongoing research we
are investigating whether there is independent evidence to support this idea.
26
o. Problems for other theories of auxiliary selection
To this point we have offered little discussion of other theories of auxiliary selec-
tion. This is because most of them were formed without the older English facts in
mind, and they simply are not built to deal with them. The well-known accounts
of the perfect auxiliaries are phrased primarily in terms of argument structure re-
lations, lexical semantics and (low) aspect, because as noted these are the factors
that are relevant to selection in German, Dutch, Italian and French. We would not,
however, expect any of these things to be affected by counterfactuality. It is unlikely
that a theory of auxiliary selection couched in such terms could satisfactorily cover
Middle and Early Modern English without extensive modications. In this section
we will briey discuss some of the most inuential theories and the issues that the
counterfactual effect presents for them.
Perhaps the most popular analysis of auxiliary selection among generative
syntacticians, associated with Burzio (1986) and many others, is that choice be-
tween be and have in languages like Italian, German and Dutch depends on
the underlying position or grammatical function of the subject. be is selected by
unaccusatives, whose subject is an underlying internal argument, while have is se-
lected by unergatives and transitives, whose subject is an external argument. Kayne
(1993) proposes to explain this difference in selection in terms of the presence or
absence of a P head which is required to introduce the participial structure, but
only when there is an external argument. The auxiliary verb is always underlyingly
be, but when the P is present, it incorporates into be, yielding have. Theories of
this kind seem to work reasonably well for the modern European languages, and
they get part of the story for older English i.e. they distinguish more or less
correctly between the verbs that always take have (transitives and unergatives)
and those that can at least sometimes take be (the unaccusatives). However, they
have no way to deal with counterfactuality effect, because this has nothing to do
with argument structure. In particular, it is hard to see how putting come under a
counterfactual would turn it into an unergative.
A more traditional account frequently offered specically for the changes in
auxiliary selection in the history of English is that be was eliminated due to pres-
io. It has recently come to our attention that counterfactual contexts allow the use of have
with verbs that otherwise require be in certain spoken varieties of Modern Dutch and Norwe-
gian. Unfortunately, this seems to have been little noted in the literature, and the details remain
uncertain. We are currently investigating the phenomenon with native-speaker informants.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.22 (1522-1593)
i,8 Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
sure to avoid ambiguity (see e.g. Traugott 1972; Zimmermann 1973; Rydn &
Brorstrm 1987). In particular, clauses with be + past participle were potentially
ambiguous between a perfect and a passive, while have + past participle was un-
ambiguously a perfect. Thus so the reasoning goes speakers increasingly used
have with verbs that had previously taken be in order to avoid confusion. In
support of this, the comparison with German is noted, where there is a separate
auxiliary werden become for the eventive passive, and sein be has been retained
as a perfect auxiliary. There are serious problems with this theory, however. First,
languages like Italian and French seem to have no problem with using be as an
auxiliary in both the perfect and the passive. Second, only transitives regularly
form passives, while only intransitives could take be as a perfect auxiliary. Thus
the only way that ambiguity of the proposed kind can arise is with verbs that have
both transitive and intransitive uses, which are not distinguished morphologically.
While this kind of alternation is reasonably common in Modern English, it was
rare in the relevant older stages of the language. Consider that in our reading of
the ME corpus, we found only 9 clauses to be ambiguous in this way, compared
to 543 clear intransitives with auxiliary be (1.7%). Finally, even if the ambiguity-
avoidance theory could be used as a (partial) explanation for the loss of perfect
auxiliary be, it is again completely unhelpful for the specic pattern with coun-
terfactuals. Counterfactual clauses should be no more prone to ambiguity than
non-counterfactual ones, so theres no reason why they should so completely fa-
vor have. Inasmuch as the data we have presented indicate an important role for
the counterfactual effect in the loss of auxiliary be, such theories would thus be at
best incomplete.
Sorace (2000) takes a different approach, proposing that auxiliary selection is
sensitive to a hierarchy of semantic verb classes. Verbs tend more or less strongly
to select have or be depending on where they fall on the hierarchy. The verbs
at one end non-motional controlled process verbs like work most strongly se-
lect have, while those at the other end change of location verbs like arrive most
strongly select be. Furthermore, languages can vary in where on the hierarchy they
draw the line between selecting have and selecting be. This approach provides
a means to capture cross-linguistic variation and change in a formal descriptive
framework, something that is notoriously problematic for unaccusativity-based
theories. However, it provides no real explanation for why a given type of verb
should behave one way and not another, and it gives no clue as to why languages
should vary and change along the scale of the hierarchy. Furthermore, Soraces the-
ory has basically the same problemwith the counterfactual effect as unaccusativity
theories. Since her hierarchy is based on the semantics of the main predicate, there
is no reason to expect things like counterfactuality to affect auxiliary selection. I.e.
putting a modal above come wont convert it from a change of location to, say,
an existence of state verb.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.23 (1593-1615)
The only theory of which we are aware which specically addresses the coun-
terfactual effect is that proposed by Shannon (1995).
27
Shannon proposes that be
is most strongly selected by clauses that approximate what he calls a mutative in-
transitive prototype, which is dened in terms of a cluster of semantic properties.
Like in the theories already mentioned, properties of the eventuality like telicity
and agentivity are relevant here, but Shannon claims that higher level properties
of the utterance go into dening the prototype as well. In particular, the mutative
intransitive prototype is dened as a positive assertion about a non-agentive even-
tuality denoting a change of state or place in the sole nominal argument (mutative
is a cover-term for change of state or place used in the older literature on auxil-
iary selection). Things like irrealis mood and negation move a clause away from
the mutative prototype by canceling the assertion that the change has taken place.
Since this prototype is what triggers selection of be, these factors can thus have
the effect of favoring have. Shannons prototype-based theory suffers from many
of the same deciencies as Soraces hierarchy-based theory. No real explanation is
offered for why selection of be should correlate with the mutative prototype. Fur-
thermore, while it can accommodate cross-linguistic variation, it does not explain
it. It is simply claimed that languages vary in how close an eventuality must be
to the mutative prototype to trigger selection of be. There is no attempt to relate
the different behavior of, say, Italian and Middle Dutch to independently observ-
able differences in the languages. Even on a descriptive level, the older English
data discussed here may be problematic for Shannons theory. As we have seen,
counterfactuality on its own was enough to rule out be without consideration of
telicity, agentivity or anything else. Putting counterfactuality on the same level as
these other properties in the denition of a single prototype fails to reect this
asymmetry, and saying that the prototype was hyper-sensitive to counterfactuality
in Middle and Early Modern English would just be a restatement of the facts.
28
Unlike most of these theories, the account we proposed in Section 4 can handle
the special properties of auxiliary selection in older English. Furthermore, it dis-
tinguishes itself from Shannon (1995)s theory in that it relates these properties to
other characteristics of the perfect in the language. Specically, older English had a
i. Most of the other works which discuss the effect are essentially descriptive i.e. they are con-
cerned primarily with documenting the changes that happened in English, and only secondarily,
if at all, with offering a cross-linguistically valid theoretical interpretation of those changes. Oth-
ers are theoretically oriented (e.g. Traugott 1972; Lipson 1999), but are more concerned with
other phenomena and do not offer an explanation for the counterfactual effect.
i8. To be fair, it should be noted that Shannon was concerned primarily with data from Mid-
dle Dutch and Middle High German, and in those languages the counterfactual effect was
apparently not categorical. His account is thus descriptively accurate for the languages it was
specically designed to deal with.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.24 (1615-1666)
ioo Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
counterfactual effect while Modern Germandoes not, because the older English be
perfect was still a stative resultative construction, while the modern German one
is a full-edged temporal perfect. Clearly, our account is not intended to replace
other theories discussed here completely. We have not presented a theory of the
general distribution of be and have for older English, let alone cross-linguistically,
but have simply offered an explanation for the effect of counterfactuality on the
choice of auxiliary. A complete account of the alternation between be and have
in a language like ME will require a combination of our account of the counter-
factual effect with some (perhaps heavily modied) version of one of the theories
discussed in this section. As pointed out above, the counterfactual effect seems
to be something that operates independent from and on top of the general pat-
terns of auxiliary selection in the language, so such a modular approach seems
appropriate.
. Conclusion and open questions
In this chapter we have argued that the initial retreat of be as a perfect auxiliary
in English was the tied to the rise of the counterfactual effect. We have shown that
auxiliary be was categorically incompatible with past counterfactual semantics,
and that the rst appearance of have with come correlates with the rst appear-
ance of counterfactuals in the perfect. Other syntactic and semantic factors which
have previously been claimed to favor have have been shown to either be at-
tributable indirectly to the counterfactual effect, or to be signicantly weaker. We
have proposed an analysis of the effect based on the proposal that the older En-
glish be perfect was in fact still a transparent resultative stative construction, and
in this way we were able to account for some of the additional facts which are
not obviously related to counterfactuality. Phenomena similar to the counterfac-
tual effect in related languages were then discussed, which lend some support to
the diachronic aspect of our analysis. Finally, we have discussed the implications
that the counterfactual effect has for familiar theories of auxiliary selection, both
those based on languages like German, Dutch and Italian and those which have
attempted to take the older English data into account.
Of course, a number of empirical and theoretical questions are raised by our
ndings and analysis which we have not yet addressed. Many of these concern
the development of English after the period that we have focused on here, and
are the subject of our ongoing corpus research. Most importantly, what is the na-
ture of and explanation for the second jump in the frequency of have with come,
which came at the end of the EModE period? Was this what led to the ultimate
disappearance of be? Furthermore, how did the counterfactual effect fare in Late
Modern English? Was there a period when the be perfect developed into a true
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.25 (1666-1745)
Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in older English io:
parallel of the have perfect before it disappeared, or did it remain restricted to re-
sultative contexts? Even for the ME and EModE periods that we covered, questions
remain regarding the inuence of innitives and negation on auxiliary selection.
Will these reduce to interactions with the semantics of the be perfect too, or is
something else going on? Cross-linguistic issues arise as well. If our analysis of the
difference between ME, Middle Dutch and Old Neapolitan on the one hand and
the modern languages on the other hand is correct, then we should also nd evi-
dence for the counterfactual effect in earlier stages of German and French. Finally,
as hinted at in the previous section, the account we have developed here for the
counterfactual effect needs to be embedded in a general theory of auxiliary selec-
tion with which it is consistent, and which ideally can account for the subsequent
stages in the loss of be as a perfect auxiliary.
References
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. Boston: Reidel.
Condoravdi, C. (2002). Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for
the past. In D. Beaver, L. C. Martnez, B. Clark, & S. Kaufmann (Eds.), The Construction
of Meaning (pp. 5987). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
Elsness, J. (1997). The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Fridn, G. (1948). Studies on the Tenses of the English Verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare, with
Special Reference to the Late Sixteenth Century. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.
Hoffmann, G. (1934). Die Entwicklung des umschriebenen Perfektums im Altenglischen und
Frhmittelenglischen. PhD dissertation, Universitt Breslau.
Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31,
231270.
Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Pancheva, R. (2003). Observations about the form and
meaning of the perfect. In A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Perfect Explo-
rations (pp. 153204). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johannisson, T. (1958). On the be and have constructions with mutative verbs. Studia Linguis-
tica, 12, 106118.
Kakietek, P. (1976). The perfect auxiliaries in the language of Shakespeare. Studia Anglica Pos-
naniensa, 8, 4553.
Kayne, R. (1993). Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica, 47, 381
405.
Kern, J. H. (1912). De met het Participium Praeteriti Omschreven Werkwoordsvormen in t Neder-
lands. Amsterdam: Johannes Mueller.
Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L. (2005). Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English.
Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (1999). Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English (2nd ed.). Philadel-
phia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:34 F: LA9708.tex / p.26 (1745-1828)
ioi Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou
Kyt, M. (1997). Be/have + past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from
Late Middle to Modern English. In M. Rissanen, M. Kyt, & K. Heikkonen (Eds.), English
in Transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles (pp. 1985). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Ledgeway, A. (2003). The distribution of the perfective auxiliary avere in Early Neapolitan: Split
intransitives conditioned by modal factors. Archivo Glottologico Italiano, 88, 2971.
Lipson, M. (1999). The loss of auxiliary selection in English. University of Pennsylvania Working
Papers in Linguistics, 6(2), 4961.
McFadden, T. & Alexiadou, A. (2006). Pieces of the perfect in German and Older English. In
D. Baumer & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics.
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Molencki, R. (2000). Parallelismvs. asymmetry: The case of English counterfactual conditionals.
In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in
English (pp. 311328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mustanoja, T. (1960). A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Socit Nophilologique.
Rydn, M. & Brorstrm, S. (1987). The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English. Stock-
holm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Shannon, T. (1995). Toward a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary variation: Some modal
and aspectual effects in the history of Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics &
Literatures, 7, 129163.
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859
890.
Stowell, T. (2004). Tense and modals. In J. Guron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of Time (pp.
Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S., & Beths, F. (2003). York-Toronto-Helsinki parsed corpus of
Old English prose. University of York.
Traugott, E. (1972). The History of English Syntax. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.
Warner, A. (1993). English Auxiliaries. Cambridge: CUP.
Zimmermann, R. (1973). Structural change in the English auxiliary system: On the replacement
of be by have. Folia Linguistica, 6, 107117.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.1 (47-117)
The loss of residual head-nal orders and
remnant fronting in Late Middle English
*
Causes and consequences
Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
Linguistics Department, Cambridge University
Since Canale (1978), head-nal structures surfacing after the Early Middle
English period have generally been ascribed to the operation of a special rather
than a productive head-nal grammar (cf. i.a. Kroch & Taylor 2000). Biberauer
& Roberts/B&R (2005) propose a different analysis in terms of which all Middle
English (ME) word-order patterns are the output of a single, optionality-per-
mitting grammar, with attested word-order changes ultimately being the conse-
quence of loss of this optionality. Specically, B&R propose that ME head-nal
orders reect the continuing availability of vP-raising, alongside DP-raising, as
a means of satisfying Ts EPP-requirements. This paper shows how vP-raising
(= DP-raising + pied-piping) can account for the occurrence of various previ-
ously unrelated special structures in ME, including Stylistic Fronting and Verb
(Projection) Raising, and also how the loss of these orders and the corresponding
rise of expletives and obligatory subject-raising can be understood as related
consequences of the loss of optional vP-raising.
* We would like to thank Ans van Kemenade for the stimulating discussion that initially led us
to consider more closely the nature of the empirical evidence that would support the Middle
English-related proposals in Biberauer & Roberts (2005); and also the audiences at DIGS VIII
and CGSW 20, as well as the participants in the Diachronic Dialogue group who attended the
seminar held at Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen in December 2004 and, in particular, two ex-
tremely thorough CGSW reviewers, whose comments forced us to consider some of our claims
more carefully; and, nally, our thanks also go to Jutta and Laszlo for their forbearance. We ac-
knowledge the nancial support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council of Great Britain
(AR14458).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.2 (117-185)
io| Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
:. Introduction
The primary empirical focus of this paper is the residual head-nal orders found
in Middle English (ME). The usual chronology for the general change from OV to
VO in English situates it in Early ME (Canale 1978; van Kemenade 1987; Light-
foot 1991; Roberts 1997a; Kroch & Taylor 1994; Fischer et al. 2000), but as various
authors have pointed out, orders which are indicative of some kind of persisting
OV grammar are found, albeit at rather low frequency and somewhat disguised
by other factors, until the 15th century (see Fischer et al. 2000: 177 for a sum-
mary and references). Here we will propose an analysis of these orders which
supports the novel proposal in Biberauer & Roberts (2005; henceforth: B&R) that
the loss of residual head-nal orders is related to the introduction of obliga-
tory clause-internal expletives. The reason for this is that both developments result
from the loss of vP-movement to SpecTP and its replacement by DP-movement to
that position.
The orders we will look at are so-called Stylistic Fronting (Styl-F), Verb Rais-
ing, i.e. SVAux sequences, and what has been analysed as Verb Projection Raising
(VPR), i.e. AuxOV sequences. Following and developing the proposals in B&R,
we propose new analyses of these orders. We also integrate the observations and
analysis of van der Wurff (1997, 1999) and Ingham (2002, 2003) regarding the
last attested OV orders with non-pronominal DPs. Furthermore, we show how
the changes that we propose for Late ME created some of the preconditions for
the well-known development of a syntactically distinct class of modal auxiliaries
in the 16th century (Lightfoot 1979; Roberts 1985, 1993; Warner 1997; Roberts &
Roussou 2003; Biberauer & Roberts 2006a, b).
The paper is organised as follows. In 2, we outline our theoretical assump-
tions, in particular those relating to the different ways in which EPP-features can
be satised (see Biberauer 2003; Richards & Biberauer 2004, 2005; Biberauer &
Richards 2005, 2006) and show how these ideas give rise to the novel account of
word-order change in ME presented in B&R. In 3, we summarise the prevailing
view of the chronology of the loss of head-nal orders in ME, basing our dis-
cussion mainly on Kroch & Taylor (2000). We then present our analyses of Styl-F
and of V(P)R. Finally, in 4, we look at some of the consequences of the proposed
analysis of V(P)R, showing how van der Wurff and Inghams results can be in-
corporated, and sketch the connection between these Late ME changes and the
developments affecting modals in Early Modern English (ENE).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.3 (185-219)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English io,
i. EPP-satisfaction and pied-piping
The technical notion central to the account of word-order change proposed by
B&R is that of pied-piping. More specically, they adopt the analysis of pied-
piping put forward in Biberauer & Richards (2005, 2006) and Richards & Bib-
erauer (2004, 2005). This analysis exploits the distinction between two related
properties a given head may have in the version of the theory of movement and
checking/agreement of features proposed in Chomsky (2001, 2004), namely that
of being a Probe on the one hand and that of being associated with one or more
EPP-features on the other. In terms of this theory, a head may bear an (active)
uninterpretable/unvalued feature (e.g. a -feature) which functions as a Probe,
necessitating the location of a matching Goal, i.e. a category bearing an inter-
pretable/valued counterpart of the probing feature since the unvalued feature of
the Probe must be eliminated from the derivation in order for convergence (well-
formedness) to be possible. The operation facilitating this feature-elimination is
assumed to be Agree. Agree holds between a Probe P and a Goal G under the
following three conditions:
(1) a. P must (asymmetrically) c-command G;
b. P and G must be non-distinct in features; and
c. there must be no Goal G = G such that P c-commands G,
G c-commands G and G does not c-command G.
Agree relationships can be successfully set up without the need for movement: as
long as P and G meet the conditions outlined above, they can enter into an Agree
relation, eliminating unvalued features in both the Probe and the Goal, which
remains in situ. The theory of feature-checking (or, more accurately, feature-
valuing/Agree) that we adopt therefore departs from earlier Minimalist proposals
(cf. Chomsky 1995) in terms of which movement and the creation of a very local
(Spec-head/head-head) conguration was regarded as a prerequisite for feature-
checking.
The Agree-basedtheory that we adopt does not, however, rule out the possibil-
ity that feature-checking (Agree) and movement may coincide: wherever a Probe-
bearing head is associated with an EPP-feature, convergence is in fact only possible
if the creation of the appropriate Agree relation is accompanied by movement of
the Goal-bearing category. The most important characteristic of this system for
B&Rs purposes is that there is nothing which prevents a Goal G from being prop-
erly contained inside a category which is moved in order to satisfy the Probes
EPP-feature. This option must be admitted in order to allow for standard cases of
pied-piping, as when the object of a preposition is questioned or relativised in a
language such as French which disallows preposition-stranding, see (2):
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.4 (219-346)
ioo Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
(2) A
To
qui
whom
as-tu
have.you
parl?
spoken?
Who(m) have you spoken to?
We can schematise this situation as in (3):
(3) wh
PROBE . . .
[
PP
wh
GOAL
. . . ] . . .
Here PP moves to satisfy the Probes EPP-feature, but the Goal is the wh-feature
on qui which is properly contained in PP.
Pied-piping under wh-movement is obligatory in French, as is well known,
while English famously allows both options, pied-piping and stranding. It is thus
clear that Universal Grammar allows variation as to whether it is simply the Goal
that moves or whether a larger category is required to move in order to satisfy the
Probes EPP-feature.
More generally, pied-piping involves the abstract congurationin (4) and Uni-
versal Grammar allows crosslinguistic variation as to whether Z
GOAL
moves to X
or the larger category YP containing Z
GOAL
moves to SpecXP:
(4) . . . X
PROBE
. . . [
YP
. . . Z
GOAL
. . . ] . . .
Biberauer (2003), Richards & Biberauer (2004, 2005) and Biberauer & Richards
(2005, 2006) exploit this option to account for aspects of word-order variation in
Germanic and to provide a unied analysis of T-related EPP-satisfaction in this
language family. Specically, they propose that, in terms of the schema in (4),
X may be T, YP may be vP and Z an element with D-features (either a subject-
DP/expletive or nominal morphology on the verb; see below) since T is assumed to
probe for a D-bearing Goal. This means that vP-movement may take place where
the Goal is in fact a D-element (Z in (4)) probed by T (X in (4)). In other words, T
with a D-oriented Probe may in fact attract a vP. The D-features of the Goal con-
tained in vP satisfy the active uninterpretable formal feature (i.e. the D-feature) of
T, while vP-movement (i.e. pied-piping) satises Ts EPP-feature.
On this basis, Richards & Biberauer (2005) construct a four-way typology of
ways of satisfying Ts EPP- and D-features based on the two parameters of the
source of the D-feature and the size of the category containing or bearing the D-
feature targeted by the Probes EPP-feature. The source of the D-feature may be
either the verb morphology, in languages where this morphology is sufciently
rich (cf. Borer 1986; Barbosa 1995; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998), or, in
languages with more impoverished verbal morphology, the DP contents of (outer)
SpecvP (see below). The size of the category containing or bearing the D-feature
may either correspond to that of the Goal (the nite verb or the DP subject) or to
that of the maximal category containing the Goal (vP). Table 1, from Richards &
Biberauer (2005), illustrates the typology:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.5 (346-346)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English io
Table 1. Typology of modes of (T-related) EPP-satisfaction
Source: [D] on Vf Source: [D] in outer SpecvP
Size: [pied-piping] Head raising Spec raising
Size: [+pied-piping] Head pied-piping Spec pied-piping
The rst rowof Table 1 indicates two modes of EPP-satisfaction that have been
much discussed in recent literature, namely that exhibited by Modern English-
type as opposed to so-called null subject languages. In the former case, Ts EPP-
requirements are satised by DP-raising from SpecvP (i.e. spec-raising), which
gives rise to the consistent presence of a DP in subject position, including oblig-
atory overt expletives in the relevant contexts. The latter case is instantiated by
canonical null-subject languages such as Greek or Italian on the type of analysis of
null subjects which assumes that the subject argument is represented by the rich
verbal morphology (see the references given above): in this case, V-to-T movement
(i.e. head raising) results in EPP-satisfaction. The second row of Table 1 presents
two new modes of EPP-satisfaction put forward in Richards & Biberauer (2005)
which, however, differ minimally from those that are already established in the
literature. Thus so-called head pied-piping languages are those which have rich
verbal inection and therefore target the D-feature located on the nite verb, but
which additionally pied-pipe the category (vP) containing the D-bearing head.
German is an example of this type of language. The option which is of most rele-
vance in the present context is the spec pied-piping type, i.e. that where the source
of the D-features is, as in Modern English, the DP located in SpecTP, while the
[+pied-piping] setting of the size parameter requires movement of the category
containing this DP, i.e. vP. Richards & Biberauer (2005) argue that this particu-
lar combination of parameter settings, uniquely among the possible combinations
representedin Table 1, allows two distinct operations to satisfy Ts featural require-
ments: either movement of the DP in the specier of vP (i.e. DP-movement), or
vP-movement. They argue that these two options both represent pied-piping of
categories of different sizes containing the [D] Goal, and that both options are
available because there are no system-internal or input-based reasons for speakers
of spec pied-piping languages to rule out DP-raising as an alternative to vP-raising.
As far as the spec pied-piping grammar is concerned, DP- and vP-raising are thus
equally allowable modes of T-related EPP-satisfaction. According to B&R, this is so
because pied-piping can be seen as an instruction to the grammar to move a cat-
egory larger than the nominal or verbal head which actually constitutes the Goal
of the Agree relation, with no precise specication as to the size of that category;
all that matters is that an XP of some type, rather than just the D-bearing head,
ultimately satises Ts EPP-requirements. Both DP-raising and vP-raising there-
fore count as instances of pied-piping, although they instantiate slightly different
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.6 (346-401)
io8 Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
species of pied-piping: with DP-raising, it is arguably the case that the features for
which the Probe searches are instantiated in distributed and partially overlapping
fashion on the various elements making up the DP. Consider, for example, the way
in which -features are very clearly seen to be distributed across the various lexical
items making up DPs in languages with rich nominal agreement cf. the German
DP in (5) in this connection:
(5) Der kleine Junge the small boy
nom nom
Masc Masc Masc
Sing Sing Sing
If we assume (nite) T to be in search of a complete set of -features (cf. Chomsky
2000 et seq.), it is clear that just raising Junge will not sufce as this would amount
to raising only part of the Goal; exclusively raising the D-element der might seem
sufcient in this case, but the fact that it is not obligatory for D-elements to be
instantiated in German nominals may be relevant here. We leave this interesting
matter aside for further research into the rather poorly understood nature of pied-
piping, noting only that DP-raising differs from vP-raising in respect of whether
or not every instance of this operation will pied-pipe non-Goal (i.e. extra) fea-
tures with vP-pied-piping, this is mostly the case; with DP-raising, it will often
not be (although cf. DPs associated with relative and complement clauses, etc.).
For our purposes, what is important is that it is not incoherent to view DP-raising
as an operation which qualies as both [+pied-piping] and [pied-piping]. Spec
pied-piping grammars may thus admit optionality in respect of how Ts EPP-
feature is satised; and spec pied-piping languages alone have a choice of ways
of satisfying Ts features since (a) the non-pied-piping languages by denition do
not have a pied-piping option and (b) in head pied-piping languages, movement
of the DP in SpecvP would not amount to movement of the Goal (or of a category
containing the Goal), and so is not possible, while movement of just the head-Goal
would result in surface strings not attested in the input and, as such, does not con-
stitute the kind of operation conservative acquirers would be expected to postulate
(cf. Biberauer & Richards 2006, Note 14).
B&R propose extending the domain within which this analysis has been said
to hold, and applying it also to the case where, in terms of (4), X is v, YP is VP
and Z is, as in the previous case, an element with D-features. For the same reason
as in the case just described, this means that a v with D-features may attract a
VP into its specier in order to Agree with the D-element contained in the VP
and in order to satisfy its EPP-feature. Again, as in the previous case, wherever the
targeted D-element is a DP, two options present themselves for the satisfaction of
vs EPP-feature: VP-raising or DP-raising, i.e. pied-piping or exclusive movement
of the Goal (stranding). B&R thus postulate an essential parallelism between
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.7 (401-461)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English io
the options available for the satisfaction of Ts and vs D-features: in both cases,
the system with the [+pied-piping] setting of the size parameter permits either
pied-piping of respectively vP and VP or, alternatively, DP-movement.
B&Rs central proposals are, rst, that Old English (OE) was initially a uni-
formly spec pied-piping language in the sense just described. As such, it allowed
optional pied-piping wherever T and v probed a phrasal D-element, thus giving
rise in the TP-domain to a choice between subject DP-movement to SpecTP or vP-
movement to this position, and, in the vP-domain, to either object DP-movement
to SpecvP or VP-movement to this position. B&R argue that this optional pied-
piping gave rise to much of the attested word-order variation in OE. Their analysis
therefore provides an account for much of what was previously seen as theoreti-
cally inexplicable variation in grammars (i.e. true optionality) or grammars in
competition (Kroch 1989; Pintzuk 1991) in terms of a single grammar, one which
freely allows both pied-piping and stranding movements to achieve the satisfaction
of its EPP-requirements. In terms of this analysis surface head-nal orders repre-
sent one kind of derived order, alongside various kinds of head-initial and mixed
orders (see Kayne 1994; Zwart 1997). Henceforth, the term head-nal (without
scare quotes) should thus be taken to refer to surface head-nal order.
B&Rs second proposal is that the loss of the optionality and its replace-
ment with just the non-pied-piping/stranding variant, i.e. subject DP-movement
to SpecTP and object DP-movement to SpecvP (which was later lost), under-
lies much of the word-order change observed in the ME period (cf. Biberauer &
Roberts 2006a, c for more detailed consideration of the non-syntactic factors that
led to the respective pied-piping options being at different stages in Englishs
history insufciently robustly attested for an optionality-permitting grammar
to be postulated by acquirers, and the role that Berwicks (1985) Subset Principle
appears to have played in determining the loss of the relevant pied-piping op-
tions and the consequent move to a smaller grammar.). Focusing specically on
the TP-domain, the proposal is that a combination of system-internal and exter-
nal (i.e. input) considerations led to the vP-movement (i.e. spec pied-piping) that
was optionally available as a means of satisfying Ts EPP-feature (by pied-piping
a D-element into SpecTP) becoming unavailable as a means of EPP-satisfaction
by Late ME. DP-movement (i.e. spec-raising) therefore became the only mech-
anism via which this feature could be satised, with the result that it became
crucial that SpecvP always be lled by a raisable nominal. Assuming expletives to
be merged in SpecvP (cf. Richards & Biberauer 2005), one of the consequences of
this development would be that expletives became obligatory at the point at which
vP-raising was lost, whereas they would only optionally have been present prior to
this change as there was always an alternative source of D-features present in vP
(see Richards & Biberauer 2005; Biberauer & Richards 2006; Biberauer & Roberts
2005, 2006a, c for more detailed discussion). So we see that B&Rs analysis relates
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.8 (461-512)
io Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
the rise of TP-expletives to word-order change: assuming auxiliaries are merged in
or moved to T and non-nite verbs remain inside vP, vP-movement will give rise
to V-Aux orders in non-V2 (i.e. non-root) contexts until such time as DP-raising,
and thus also obligatory TP-expletives, became established as the sole means of
satisfying Ts EPP-feature. B&R thus predict that non-root V-Aux and a variety
of other apparent reexes of a head-nal grammar and additionally also anoma-
lous phenomena like Stylistic Fronting will decrease and ultimately disappear as
TP-expletives emerge and ultimately become obligatory (see 3.1 below).
Although interesting and non-obvious, B&Rs prediction does not conform
to the standard view of the chronology of syntactic changes in ME: it is usually
said that V-Aux orders disappear in Early ME, whilst it is clear that TP-expletives
only consistently appear from around 1400, becoming obligatory in the mid-15th
century (cf. Haeberli 1999a; Williams 2000; Ingham 2001). In the next section,
we present the standard view of the status in ME of V-Aux orders and head-nal
orders more generally and then propose an alternative account of the changes in
ME that leads to a reconsideration of the data that is in fact consistent with B&Rs
conclusions.
. The loss of residual head-nal orders in Middle English
In work on ME word-order change it is usually assumed that OV orders disappear
in Early ME, despite the fact that examples of this order do occur albeit at in-
creasingly low frequencies until Late ME. Since it has inuentially been argued
that the principal VP-related word-order changes took place in the 12th century
(see Canale 1978; van Kemenade 1987; Lightfoot 1991), the residual head-nal
orders of Late ME have generally been analysed as resulting from some special
process(es). In this section, we will argue two things. First, we show that one ac-
knowledged case of special syntax in ME, Stylistic Fronting, in fact represents a
straightforward case of vP-fronting to SpecTP of the kind introduced in the previ-
ous section which therefore requires no further stipulations. We will in fact suggest
that reexes of vP-fronting are generally more common in later ME than has usu-
ally been thought. Second, we will focus on structures that are traditionally viewed
as biclausal, namely those involving modals, and show how these also played a role
in shoring up the ME acquirers analysis of ME as a system permitting both DP-
and vP-raising in order to satisfy Ts EPP-requirements.
.: Stylistic fronting
A good recent example of the standard line of reasoning on residual head-nal
orders is Kroch & Taylor (2000) who point out, in a discussion of a group of
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.9 (512-573)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i:
13th-century prose texts, that supercially INFL-nal [i.e. Aux-nal MTB/IGR]
clauses often have another possible analysis; that is, they can also be analysed as
instances of stylistic fronting (138). Stylistic Fronting (Styl-F) is an operation
rst observed in Icelandic by Maling (1990) which involves the fronting of a par-
ticiple, adverb or negation. The principal condition on Styl-F is that there must
be a subject-gap. Styl-F is also subject to an Accessibility Hierarchy which states
that negation takes precedence over adverbs which in turn take precedence over
participles and other verbal elements. The following example illustrates Styl-F in
Icelandic:
(6) Honum
Him
mtti
might
standa
stand
on
sama,
same
hva
what
sagt
said
vri
was
um
about
hann
him
It might be all the same to him what was said about him.
(Maling (1990)s (5), Kroch & Taylors (7), p. 139)
This is an example of a subject relative; hence the subject-gap condition on Styl-F
is met by wh-movement. The participle sagt has been fronted to a position which
immediately precedes the inected auxiliary. Note that other VP-internal mate-
rial here the PP um hann (about him) remains in its normal position, given
that Icelandic is a VO language.
Here are some examples of Styl-F in ME, fromKroch & Taylor (2000: 139) and
Trips (2002: 306):
(7) a. auriche
every
manne
man
e
that
i-bore en
saved
scal
shall
bien
be
every man who shall be saved
(CMVICESi, 63.695; Kroch & Taylors (8), p. 139)
b. and
and
he
he
besohte
sought
at
of
gode
Gode
at
that
naht
not
ne
neg
scolde
should
reinin
rain
And he asked of God that it should not rain.
(CMVICESi,143.1787; Kroch & Taylors (9), p. 139)
c. wi
with
all
all
att
that
lac
sacrice
att
that
offredd
offered
wass
was
biforenn
before
Cristess
Christs
come
coming
with all the sacrice that was made before Christs coming
(Ormulum I.55.525; Tripss (123), p. 306)
The subordinate clause in (7a) is a subject relative and so the subject-gap condition
is met in the same way as in (6). Here the adjectival participle i-boreen has been
fronted to a position immediately preceding scal. We treat premodals like scal as
restructuring verbs in ME, i.e. potential triggers of Verb Raising (VR) and Verb
Projection Raising (VPR), in line with the standard treatment of these verbs in
Continental West Germanic languages (cf. Evers 1975; Haegeman&van Riemsdijk
1986; Rutten 1991; Hinterhlzl 1999, etc.; see 3.2). Following Lightfoot (1979),
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.10 (573-628)
ii Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
Roberts (1985) and Warner (1993), we assume that these elements only developed
their characteristic Modern English auxiliary properties after the ME period (see
4.3). The non-nite auxiliary bien follows scal; this is the typical position for
innitives in the complement of restructuring verbs. In (7b), the subject gap is
constituted by an apparently missing expletive and the fronted element is the
negative adverb naht (not), while the gap in the passivised relative in (7c) is
similar to that in (7a), with the passive participle offredd (offered) representing
the fronted element in this case.
There have been several proposals concerning the nature of Styl-F. An inu-
ential recent proposal is that proposed in Holmberg (2000), where it is argued that
Styl-F is an operation which places the phonological matrix of an arbitrary con-
stituent in SpecIP. This operation is subject to a locality condition which requires
the nearest available phonological matrix to move to SpecIP. The Accessibility Hi-
erarchy originally noticed by Maling (1990) can then be derived, assuming that
negation is structurally closer to I than vP-adverbs which in turn are closer than
VP-internal verbal material (see Holmberg 2000: 462463 for details).
Kroch & Taylor (137ff.) propose reducing surface V-Aux orders to cases of
Styl-F. They observe (138) that treating all clauses with V-Aux order and a sub-
ject gap as cases of Styl-F has the consequence that the number of true V-Aux
orders, i.e. where there is no subject gap and therefore in Kroch & Taylors terms
less possibility of a Styl-F analysis, in the texts they look at is considerably reduced:
from 212 to 171, i.e. by just under 20%. Furthermore, they follow Platzack (1988)
in considering that Styl-F may also be allowed in clauses with subject pronouns,
assuming that pronouns in ME create a subject gap by cliticising to C. This further
reduces the total number of true V-Aux orders to 40, i.e. to roughly 19% of the
original total of 212.
Kroch & Taylors gures are, however, suspect on several grounds. First, the
main reduction (from 80% of surface V-Aux orders to 19%) depends on the as-
sumption that subject pronouns undergo cliticisation to C. However, this putative
subject-cliticisation operation is dubious for several reasons (Falk 1993 raises some
of these objections as well). First, it is unclear whether subject cliticisation applies
in narrow syntax or in PF; if it applies in PF then it does not create the subject gap
in the syntax which Styl-F requires (cf. Ackema & Neeleman 2003, who argue that
the exactly comparable subject-cliticisation operation in Dutch is a PF-operation).
Second, subject cliticisation would involve right-adjunction of the subject pro-
noun to C, an operation which violates Kaynes Linear Correspondence Axiom
(LCA), and, as such, may even be suspect as a PF-operation (see i.a. Moro 2000;
and Chomsky 2001: 37ff., on the idea that the LCA may be a PF linearisation re-
quirement). Third, we are unaware of any current spoken language in which Styl-F
is facilitated by subject cliticisation; Icelandic, notably, seems to lack subject cliti-
cisation. Fourth, counting clauses with subject pronouns as involving Styl-F skews
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.11 (628-691)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i
the data since subject pronouns are, for discourse-informational reasons, much
more frequent than non-pronominal subjects in most kinds of connected written
text, and so the incidence of putative Styl-F is articially inated by Kroch &
Taylors relaxing of the subject-gap requirement. We therefore suggest that Kroch
& Taylors conclusion that only 19% of surface V-Aux orders really are V-Aux or-
ders is not warranted. Instead, if we count the examples with subject pronouns as
not involving Styl-F, then the number of V-Aux clauses in the texts Kroch & Taylor
looked at returns to 171, a not insignicant number.
What we would now like to argue is that all instances of surface V-Aux or-
dering, including the apparently supercially clear cases of Styl-F and other
instances of surface head-nal order, should, in fact, be viewed as exponents of a
single, formerly fully productive, but in ME ever more residually active operation
generating surface head-nal order. Following B&R, we propose that putative cases
of Styl-F and head-nal ordering more generally in fact involve vP-movement to
SpecTP. In these terms, the TP inside the relative clause in an example like (7c) has
the structure given in (8):
1
(8)
[ [ t ] [ [ wass ] t
TP P Op T T P v v
offredd ]]
This structure requires several comments. The most important aspect of it for
the purposes of this paper is that vP, containing the string t
Op
offredd, has raised
from its rst-merged position following [
T
wass ] to SpecTP. This operation takes
place in order to satisfy Ts D-oriented EPP-feature. As we saw in the previous
section, B&R argue that in ME the pied-piping option for satisfying Ts EPP-
requirements was still available. In the case under consideration, the D-feature
is borne by the passive participle offredd, which we, following Baker, Johnson &
Roberts (1989), assume to contain the absorbed logical subject (cf. also Richards
& Biberauer 2005).
The PP biforenn Cristess come was also a constituent of VP (and therefore of
vP). However, it does not appear before the auxiliary in the surface string because
:. The examples in (6a, b) are more complex than (6c) in that they involve verb-raising in the
sense of Evers (1975), as seen from the order nite verb non-nite verb in clause-nal position.
For a detailed analysis of this order in terms of the general assumptions made here, see B&R, pp.
11ff; see also 3.2. What we would like to highlight here, however, is that the analysis that we
propose for modals namely that they are verbs which select a very specic type of complement,
a restructuring TP allows us to account for the fact that vP-raising will not, as one might
initially expect in cases like (6a, b), result in the non-nite verb undergoing movement into
SpecTP along with any non-verbal element undergoing Styl-F. As discussed in more detail in
3.2, the innitive in modal complements raises to embedded T and is consequently unavailable
for fronting into the matrix clause, with the consequence that it is not present in the vP that
raises to SpecTP in Styl-F structures.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.12 (691-743)
i| Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
at this stage the pied-piping option was no longer available for v. The object is
extracted under relativisation, which we have indicated by t
Op
; the leftmost occur-
rence of this symbol marks its successive-cyclic movement through SpecvP.
2
The
PP therefore remains within the VP throughout the vP phase of the derivation,
and it surfaces in nal position owing to the effects of the Phase Impenetrability
Condition (PIC; see Chomsky 2000: 108)):
(9) In a phase with head H, the domain of H (i.e. its complement MTB/IGR)
is not accessible to operations outside , only H and its edge are accessible to
such operations.
For our purposes, the relevant phases are CP and vP. The heads H are therefore
C and v. Chomsky suggests that the PIC holds because the derivation proceeds
by phases, with material in the domain of the head of each phase being trans-
ferred to the PF and LF interfaces at the end of that phase. Such material thereby
becomes inaccessible to the formal mechanisms of the syntactic component. The
consequence of this for (9) is that the PP biforenn Cristess come is transferred to
the PF-interface when the derivation completes the vP phase and, as such, is not
spelled out as part of the moved vP, but in the nal position it occupied at the end
of the vP phase. We have indicated this in (8) by presenting the content of the PP
in outline font (the same is true for the trace/copy of the constituent extracted un-
der relativisation, although obviously in this case there is no visible effect on word
order; see Note 2).
The structure in (8) is straightforwardly derivable on B&Rs assumptions
about the movement-triggering features associated with T: it is simply the output
of a derivation in which Ts EPP-feature has been satised by vP-raising (i.e. spec
pied-piping). This analysis generalises to all cases which Kroch & Taylor identify
as Styl-F, and additionally also provides a non-stipulative account of the pronoun-
containing structures that they are obliged to analyse as involving the dubious
cliticisation operation discussed above: in our terms, V-Aux orders with pronom-
inal subjects are derived in exactly the same way as the more conventional Styl-F
cases just discussed, namely via vP-raising with vP in this case containing the
subject pronoun in addition to the non-nite verb.
A further advantage of the approach advocated here is that it facilitates a very
simple analysis of V-Aux structures that are very evidently not amenable to a Styl-
F analysis, i.e. of the V-Aux structures that Kroch & Taylor acknowledge to be the
bona de output of a head-nal grammar. Consider (10) in this connection:
i. Note that nothing here hinges on the assumption of a null-operator rather than a raising
analysis of relatives. We have placed the rightmost occurrence of t
Op
in the leaked part of the
VP, along with the PP biforenn Cristess come see the discussion of the surface position of this
PP in the text to follow.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.13 (743-797)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i,
(10) er anne
before
e
that
heuene
heaven
oer
or
eore
earth
shapen
created
were
were
before heaven or earth were created
(Trinity Homilies, 133.1776; Kroch & Taylors (4a), p. 137)
Examples like this clearly do not feature a subject gap, and the overt subject is not a
pronoun, but a coordinated DP, i.e. a subject that cannot plausibly be said to have
cliticised to C in order to create a subject gap. As such, this type of V-Aux example
would not seem to be amenable to a Styl-F analysis and would therefore have to
be viewed as the output of a genuine head-nal grammar. On our approach,
by contrast, the occurrence of structures like (10) is completely straightforward
and would be expected to fall out from the same (single) grammar that gives rise
to Styl-F structures such as those in (7). The representation of the embedded
clause in (10) is shown in (11):
(11) [
CP
e [
TP
[
vP
heuene oer eore shapen t
heuene oer eore
] [
T
[
T
were] t
vP
]]]
As noted above, this kind of example must, in Kroch & Taylors terms, be treated
as generated by the head-nal grammar competing with the head-initial grammar
that is active in other cases. But the existence of a head-nal grammar means that
at least some of the Styl-F cases are in fact indeterminate for language acquirers,
since they could be treated either as the output of a head-nal system (cf. our pro-
posal, which could, of course, be translated into more traditional head-nal terms)
or as the special output of a head-initial system (cf. the usual analysis of Styl-F
in Icelandic). Since we do not assume competing grammars, our approach does
not allow this indeterminacy. On our analysis, the logical-object DP heuene oer
eore in (11) raises under passivisation to SpecvP. Following and updating Baker,
Johnson & Roberts (1989: 222) proposal, we take it that passive v is not in fact
defective,
3
but rather has a D-feature and therefore may have a D-oriented EPP
feature which triggers movement of this DP into its specier (this feature is sat-
ised by successive-cyclic movement of t
Op
in (8)). The entire vP is then fronted
to SpecTP, giving the observed surface order. This is thus a further instance of
pied-piping satisfying Ts EPP-feature. It must be the case that different features
of the moved DP Agree with v and Ts D-features; perhaps, given the facts of Ro-
mance past-participle agreement (Kayne 2000: Chapters 2 and 3), Agree involves
gender and number features at the v-level and person at the T-level (cf. also Chom-
sky 2000: 125). This would thus be a case of partial feature-matching between the
. Note that the assumption we make here regarding vs defectiveness should not be interpreted
as indicative of our commitment to the idea that passive v is universally non-defective. See Biber-
auer &DAlessandro (2006) for considerationof data that may signal the existence of parametric
variation in respect of this point.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.14 (797-888)
Probes T and v and the Goal DP heuene oer eore. In a Germanic language like
ME, vs -features have no visible morphological consequences, but we propose
here that it may in fact be possible to observe their syntactic effects in examples
like (10).
We thus have a straightforwardgeneral account for V-Aux orders in ME, which
does away with Styl-F as a separate option, reducing it to another case of (remnant)
vP-movement to SpecTP. We have also shown that this view entails that genuine
(i.e. OE-like, systematically derived) V-Aux structures were more frequent in ME
than is usually thought.
Our analysis also allows us to account for a number of other fairly well-known
anomalies in ME word order. First, we can account for what is often seen as Styl-
F of the negative element noht/naht (also spelt in various other ways). This is
illustrated in (7b) above. In this example, vP containing naht and (possibly) a
quasi-expletive null subject DP has moved to SpecTP of the clause at naht ne
scolde reinin. As mentioned in Note 1, this is a verb-raising construction with
the innitive reinin moved to the T-position of the innitival TP complement to
scolde. We also nd examples of putative Styl-F of negation where there is no aux-
iliary of any kind present, showing that the phenomenon is quite independent of
auxiliaries:
(12) Thairwith
at-this
he
he
nocht
not
growit
shrunk
At this he did not shrink (in fear)
(c1448: Richard Holland The Buke of the Howlat, 7; cited in Gray 1985: 152;
Roberts 1993: 252)
Second, various kinds of adverbs can be pied-piped to SpecTP along with vP.
4
In a
subordinate clause, this gives rise to the order complementiser (subject) adverb
verb, as illustrated in (13):
|. An anonymous reviewer raises the question whether our analysis would not lead us to ex-
pect vP-adjuncts to surface in pre-subject position, contra the most common pattern in earlier
English and Germanic more generally (cf. Haeberli 1999b, 2000 for discussion of the excep-
tions). We assume that Cinque (1999)s lower adverbs are merged below the subject (or, more
accurately, the external argument; cf. the fact that non-external argument subjects frequently
surfaced in low positions until Late ME) and that they therefore do not constitute a prob-
lem for our approach. As regards higher adverbs of the subject- and discourse-oriented type,
we are happy to allow for the possibility that these are indeed merged higher than the external
argument, but that the external argument generally (but not always; see below) surfaces higher
than adverbs of this kind owing to the presence of an optional EPP-feature which drives subject-
movement to the highest specier of vP. Since this is an optional EPP-feature, we would, in
accordance with Chomskys (2001: 34) constraint on optional features and operations, expect it
to trigger an extra interpretive effect (cf. the detailed discussionin Biberauer &Richards 2006).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.15 (888-919)
(13) a. For
for
many
many
are
are
that
that
never
never
kane
can
halde
hold
the
the
ordyre
order
of
of
lufe
love
For there are many that can never keep the commandment of love
(14th century: Rolle The Bee and the Stork, 2021; cited in Moss 1968;
Kroch 1989: 227; Roberts 1993: 254)
b. at
that
he
he
neure
never
mare
more
sculde
should
cuman
come
ut
out
that he shouldnt come out any more
(ChronE (Plummer) 1140.48; Fischer et al. 2000: 243)
These orders have often been seen as problematic for the widely held and oth-
erwise quite well-motivated idea that ME was like Modern French in having
V-to-T movement in nite clauses (see Roberts 1985, 1993; Pollock 1989). In
ModernFrench, orders of this kind are impossible (whether the subject is pronom-
inal or not; see Pollock 1989; Kayne 2000). If they are derived by vP-movement
in ME prior to roughly 1450, then, as long as French is analysed as a spec-
raising language in the sense dened in 2, we see why ME and French differ
in this respect.
Third, Haeberli (1999a: 409ff.) points out that until approximately 1450,
ME allowed adverbs to intervene between the complementiser and the subject,
as in (13):
(14) a. And
and
of
of
thyse
these
two
two
foloweth
follows
as
as
a
a
corelary
corollary
ye
the
thirde
third
trouth
truth
And the third truth follows as a corollary from these two
(Fitzja, B6R.220; Haeberlis (25d), p. 410)
This would indeed seem to be the case if one considers Diesing effects of the kind that have
been said to arise in languages like German, which we would assume to employ vP-fronting:
in these languages, subjects are differently interpreted depending on their location relative to
higher adverbs such as ja doch (after all) and wahrscheinlich (probably). For us, this would
follow straightforwardly if a post-adverbial subject is simply in its First Merge position, whereas
a pre-adverbial subject has undergone optional EPP-driven movement to the edge of vP, which
thereby brings with it a specic interpretive effect (we leave aside here the vexed issue of pre-
cisely what kind of interpretive effect results). The fact that our approach requires us to assume
that discourse-related adverbs are merged inside vP would not seem to us to be particularly
problematic since (a) this assumption has also been made by other linguists working on what
we would view as vP-raising languages (cf. Mller 2004) and (b) more traditional analyses also
have to account for the fact that discourse adverbials standardly surface below the subject in em-
bedded clauses, despite the fact that the subject is usually thought to be located in SpecTP, with
the relevant adverbs therefore having to occupy a lower position. See Biberauer (2006) for more
detailed discussion of this matter.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.16 (919-1002)
i8 Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
b. and
and
soo
so
is
is
geyt
yet
e
the
terme
period
of
of
fty
fty
gere
years
wytt
with
us
us
e
the
ger
year
of
of
gracse
grace
And so the period of fty years is for us the year of grace
(Siege, 70.17; Haeberlis (25e), p. 410)
Again, we can treat the adverb as contained within the vP which undergoes move-
ment to SpecTP in these cases. The fact that the frequency of this order declines
fairly sharply around 1450 (see Tables 10 and 11 in Haeberli 1999a: 409410; and
Haeberli 2000) once again ts in with the analysis proposed here, namely that this
was the point at which vP-raising was lost (see below). As Haeberli (1999b) shows
in his survey of this order across a range of Germanic languages, the order in (14)
is possible just in those languages which Richards & Biberauer (2005) identify as
spec pied-piping languages as dened in 2.
Fourth, the existence of unambiguously in-situ subjects and sentences lack-
ing overt expletives in SpecTP provide further evidence for vP-raising to SpecTP.
These phenomena are illustrated in (15):
(15) a. And
and
in
in
is
this
tyme
time
were
were
sent
sent
writtis
writs
orowoute
throughout
e
the
lond
country
And in this time, writs were sent throughout the country
(Capgrave Chronicles 213.72; Haeberlis (29a), p. 420)
b. And
and
in
in
alle
all
the
the
world
world
is
is
no
no
gretter
greater
treson . . .
treason . . .
And in all the world there is no great treason . . .
(Prologues, Caxton 12.15; Haeberlis (23a), p. 406)
Finally, it is worth pointing out that very many simple sentences in ME would have
been compatible with a vP-fronting analysis. This is true of V2 sentences generally.
Thus, for example, any sentence with the order Adverb Verb Subject Object
was amenable to either of the two analyses given in (16):
(16) a. [
CP
Adv [
C
V ] [
TP
[
vP
Su [
v
[
v
(V+v) ] ] [
T
(V+v)] [
VP
(V) Ob ] ]]
b. [
CP
Adv [
C
V ] [
TP
Su [
T
(V+v)] [
vP
(Su) [
v
[
v
(V+v) ] [
VP
(V) Ob ] ]]]
(We do not indicate the trace of the Adverb, as its position depends on the type
of adverb, which is not essential for the point being made here). These structures
will always be ambiguous since there will never be any overt material to be sent to
Spellout in T, given the T-to-C movement operation operative in the derivation of
V2-clauses. When V2 was lost (c1450, according to van Kemenade 1987; Haeberli
1999a; Fischer et al. 2000), this ambiguity disappeared, which played a crucial role
in the loss of vP-fronting (this idea is further developed in Biberauer & Roberts
2006a, b; and Biberauer 2006).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.17 (1002-1033)
As noted in the introduction to this paper, B&Rs analysis predicts a connec-
tion between the loss of surface head-nal-type orders and the development of
obligatory overt expletives in SpecTP, as well as obligatory subject-raising to this
position: as soon as vP-raising is lost as a possible means of satisfying Ts EPP-
requirements, subject-/expletive-raising remains as the only available mechanism
to achieve EPP-satisfaction. We know from the work of researchers like Breivik
(1990), Haeberli (1999a), Williams (2000) and Ingham(2001) that expletives were
still very commonly omitted during the Early ME period, particularly in clause-
internal position (cf. Biberauer 2004). In terms of B&Rs analysis, this possibility
correlates directly with the availability of vP-raising, a mechanism which would, as
we have seen, also be expected to systematically give rise to surface head-nal or-
derings as well as the orders and ambiguities that we have discussed in this section.
We have now seen that there is a range of phenomena present throughout the ME
period up until roughly 1450 which could support the postulation of a grammar
with vP-movement, despite the relatively low frequency of V-Aux and OV order.
Additionally, there are a number of high-frequency structures (e.g. V2 clauses)
which are ambiguous in respect of the manner in which Ts EPP-requirements are
met. Taken together, therefore, we conclude that B&Rs optionality-based proposal
is indeed empirically supported.
B&Rs analysis also predicts that surface head-nal orderings and Styl-F phe-
nomena will no longer surface once expletives and, more generally, the kind of
raising-to-subject phenomena characteristic of Modern English, become oblig-
atory (i.e. mid-15th century), and that the disappearance of these orders is con-
nected to the loss of V2 (cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2006a, b). This prediction is
borne out, not just in Modern English but, signicantly, also in other Germanic
languages which have previously been said to have permitted either V-Aux order-
ings or Styl-F or both and now systematically require DP-raising to SpecTP (cf.
the Mainland Scandinavian languages, as discussed in i.a. Holmberg & Platzack
1995; see also Biberauer 2004, 2006): in all cases, it is possible to connect the
unavailability of V-Aux ordering and/or Styl-F to the fact that these languages
presently require DP-raising and only DP-raising (i.e. spec-raising) to satisfy Ts
EPP-requirements. In all cases, V2 has survived in matrix clauses, thereby guar-
anteeing the SpecTP-related ambiguity noted above; crucially, however, all of
these languages underwent ME-style loss of V2 in embedded clauses, with the
consequence that the relevant ambiguities were no longer attested in embedded
contexts: it became clear that embedded Ts EPP-requirements are satised via
DP-raising. Signicantly, this embedded change appears to have affected the anal-
ysis of matrix clauses, with the establishment of an exclusively spec-/DP-raising
EPP-satisfaction mechanism in that context biasing the grammar generally in
favour of DP-raising, i.e. the loss of the vP-fronting option. If this is correct, this
development would seem to argue against Lightfoots (1991) Degree Zero Learn-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.18 (1033-1093)
i8o Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
ability proposals (cf. also 4.2 for discussion of a further instance of change which
appears to have spread from embedded to matrix contexts).
.i Verb (Projection) Raising alternations
In this section, we look at so-called Verb (Projection) Raising (V(P)R) triggered by
premodals, the forerunners of the modern English modals which are traditionally
thought to have started out as elements selecting a clausal complement, i.e. to have
occurred in biclausal structures. As rst pointed out in van Kemenade (1987: 55ff.),
modal, causative and perception verbs were optional V(P)R (i.e. restructuring)
triggers in OE, a state of affairs that entailed that the innitival Vs selected by
these verbs could follow their selectors, as illustrated in (17):
5
(17) a. . . . e
who
fre
ever
on
in
gefeohte
battle
his
his
handa
hands
wolde
would
afylan
dele
. . . whoever would dele his hands in battle
(lfrics Lives of Saints 25.858; Pintzuks (62), p. 102)
b. . . . t
that
hi
they
mihton
could
swa
so
bealdlice
boldly
Godes
Gods
geleafan
faith
bodian
preach
. . . that they could preach Gods faith so boldly
(CHom I, 16.232.23; cited in Fischer et al. 2000: 156)
Although it is generally agreed that the OE (and ME) modals were main verbs,
modal-containing examples consistently feature in discussions about the location
of In (medial or nal) and, importantly in the context of the present discussion,
of Aux relative to V. We will follow this practice here as we assume that the OE and
ME modals (exceptionally among the class of nite verbs; see 4.3) underwent
raising to T and we also do not exclude the possibility that some of these verbs
may in fact be merged in the T-domain (see 2 above and 4 below). What we
would like to show now is what role these verbs played in the loss of vP-raising
and the associated change in the nature of SpecTP in ME. We concentrate on this
case to the exclusion of aspectual auxiliaries with participial complements since
it is less clear that the latter consistently involved biclausal structures during the
ME period.
,. Here we leave aside for future research the question of why the OE premodals appear to
exhibit optionality in respect of whether they selected full vs restructuring complements
(cf. the fact, pointed out to us by an anonymous reviewer, that 3456/8649 [i.e. 39.96%] OE
subordinate clauses taken from Haeberli & Pintzuk 2004 featured V-Aux order rather than
restructuring Aux-V).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.19 (1093-1117)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i8:
We consider a VR structure of the kind illustrated in (17a) by way of illustra-
tion:
6
(18)
TP
vP
2
T
T vP
2
vP
1
DP-Subj v
v
v VP
TP
INF
V
R
T vP
1
T vP
1
V+v T
where the vP labelled vP
1
for expository convenience has the following internal
structure (bracketed elements are those which have undergone movement out of
vP
1
):
(18)
vP
1
VP
DP
PRO
v
v
(V+v) (VP) (V) DP-Obj
We are assuming that the complement of a restructuring verb is a TP (cf. i.a.
Wurmbrand 2001; and Lee-Schoenfeld 2005 for arguments in favour of the well-
o. Here we indicate the subject of the innitive as PRO. We do this largely for convenience,
remaining on the one hand agnostic regarding the correct analysis of control (see Hornstein
1999; Manzini & Roussou 2000), and on other hand not wishing to imply that restructuring
predicates are never raising predicates.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.20 (1117-1214)
i8i Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
established idea that restructuring complements are smaller than other clausal
complements, and Roberts 1997a: 412 for arguments that such complements are
larger than VP in OE). In the context of the theoretical framework we are assuming
here, the specic assumption is that restructuring complements are TPs headed by
a defective T, i.e. one that is not selected by C (cf. B&R 14ff., Chomsky 2004,
2005). For our present purposes, this idea has the important consequence that the
material in the restructuring complement is not sent to Spellout prior to merger
of V
R
, the way material in the clausal complements of non-restructuring verbs
is (owing to the PIC; cf. (9) above). This accounts for the clause union effects
commonly associated with restructuring structures. Let us see how our analysis of
V(P)R works in more detail.
The derivation of the VR order in OE (17a) proceeds by the following steps.
First, V moves to v inside the vP of the embedded clause. We take this to be a
standard and possibly universal operation (cf. Marantz 1997; Chomsky 2004: 122);
it certainly holds for all periods of earlier English (cf. Zwart 2005 on the non-
adjacency of V-Obj in earlier English). Second, the remnant VP moves to SpecvP
(cf. the fact that not just the object, his handa, but additionally also a loca-
tive/situative PP, on gefeohte, which may reasonably be thought of as having been
merged inside VP, surfaces preverbally in (17a)).
7
Third, V+v moves to T in the
innitival clause. This operation is the key to deriving the Aux-V order here. We
take it that this innitive-movement is triggered by a selectional property of the
main-clause verb V
R
. Specically, we propose the relevant selectional property to
be the nature of the (defective) TP that V
R
selects (cf. Evers 1975; and Haege-
man & van Riemsdijk 1986 on VPR and the verbs that trigger it, and Kayne 1991;
. It should, of course, be noted that object-raising (i.e. stranding rather than pied-piping)
would also have been available as an alternative to VP-raising at this stage of the OE deriva-
tion. We would therefore expect OE also to exhibit structures in which non-object VP-internal
material surfaces after the innitival V, and leaking structures of this kind are in fact attested:
(i) <Me
one
schal>
shall
leoue
dear
sustren
sisters
eose
these
storien
stories
tellen
tell
eft
afterwards
ou
to-you
One shall tell these stories to you afterwards, dear sisters
(Ancrene Riwle II.122.1552; Kroch & Taylor (2000)s (32), p. 155)
Here both an adverbial (eft) and an indirect object pronoun (ou) surface to the right of the
verb (tellen) which we assume to have raised to adjoin to innitival T (cf. main text); the direct
object (eose storien) contrasts with the just-mentioned VP-material in surfacing to the left of
tellen, indicating that it must have undergone movement. Following the loss of VP-raising (i.e.
the pied-piping means of satisfying vs EPP-requirements), only object raising would have been
available, with the result that structures of this type would be expected to have been even more
frequent than during the OE period where they still alternated with the VP-raising type illus-
trated in (17a) in the main text. The consequences of the loss of obligatory object shift (cf. 2)
are discussed in more detail in 4.1 and 4.2.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.21 (1214-1240)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i8
Roberts 1997b, on the connection between restructuring and innitive-movement
in Romance). We argue that this selectional property also accounts for the absence
of the innitive marker to in the complements to these verbs: since the selected
T triggers innitive-movement to itself, there is no position for the innitival T-
marker (cf. the often-noted absence of zu or te in such complements in German
and Dutch respectively).
8
The next step in the derivation of the VR structure in
(17a) is then vP movement to the specier of the selected T (this is another in-
stance of pied-piping satisfying an EPP-feature); we return to the consequences
of employing the DP-raising/non-pied-piping mode of EPP-satisfaction in 4.2
below, but note here only that we do not exclude it and that structures derived
via this mode of EPP-satisfaction (i.e. pseudo modern English-like S-Aux-V-O
structures) are indeed attested in both OE and ME (cf. B&R for further discus-
sion). Returning to the derivation of (17a): following merger of V
R
and V-to-v
raising, the vP is raised to the specier of the matrix vP under the inuence of
matrix vs EPP-feature, and the (matrix) external argument is merged. Follow-
ing completion of the vP phase, the material in vs complement (thus, crucially,
the embedded V which has undergone raising to innitival T) is sent to Spellout,
whereafter matrix T is merged. T then Agrees with and attracts V
R
in accordance
with our assumptions about modals, and it also probes for D-features, which must
then be raised to SpecTP in order to satisfy Ts D-related EPP-requirements. At
this point, the same two options that apply in the monoclausal environments dis-
cussed above are once again available: either the subject DP or the vP can undergo
raising to SpecTP. VR structures like (17a) are derived via vP-raising (i.e. pied-
piping), whereas VPR structures like (17b) are the result of DP-raising. On our
analysis, therefore, the difference between VR and VPR structures lies solely in
the manner in which matrix Ts EPP-requirements are met. This would seem to
be a desirable outcome as modern counterparts of these structures attested in
many non-standard German and Dutch varieties and also in spoken Afrikaans
are interpretively equivalent (Hans Broekhuis, Liliane Haegeman, p.c.), i.e. they
instantiate precisely the kind of true optionality that our optional pied-piping
analysis would predict (cf. further discussion in Biberauer & Richards 2006).
8. It is worth noting that to was not as systematically found in innitives in ME as it is in present-
day English (cf. Los 1999, 2005). In particular, it consistently failed to appear in the complements
of modals, a characteristic which the modern-day English modals, with the well-known excep-
tion of ought, retain and which has also frequently been said to have played an important role
in the reanalysis of the English modals (cf. Lightfoot 1979; Roberts 1985, 1993 and the discus-
sion in 4). It is possible that ought in fact derives from some other source than verb-projection
raising, since its cognates in German and Dutch do not trigger verb-projection raising. We leave
this matter for further research.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.22 (1240-1274)
i8| Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
The above discussion has therefore shown the optionality in respect of the
manner in which Ts EPP-requirements are met is not restricted to monoclausal
contexts; exactly the same optionality appears to have been available in biclausal
V(P)R structures. In connection specically with VPR structures, it is further
worth noting that the same optionality is also likely to have been available in the
lower clause, i.e. like matrix T, innitival Ts EPP-requirements could also be met
either via vP- or DP-raising in VPR structures, whereafter the contents of inniti-
val SpecTP undergo raising into the matrix clause as outlined above. As both vP-
and DP-raising in the lower clause will ultimately deliver the requisite S-Aux-O-V
string, it is clear that the precise manner in which innitival Ts EPP-requirements
are met is opaque. Like the V2 structures discussed in 3.1 above, VPR structures
therefore constitute ambiguous input in respect of the manner in which matrix Ts
EPP-requirements are satised. Both VR and VPR structures would thus have con-
stituted points of ambiguity in the input available to the OE and ME child, points
of ambiguity that, we believe, may well have played an important role in allowing
children to continue postulating optionality-permitting grammars until approxi-
mately the mid-15th century when the combined weight of evidence in favour of a
grammar that permitted only one of the original options (i.e. DP-raising) became
too great. We will consider this latter point in more detail in 4 below.
. Conclusion
In this section, we have seen that residual head-nal structures and also vari-
ous other structures that are usually regarded as anomalous in the ME context
can be given a unied analysis as the output of a single grammar, one which li-
censes both DP- and vP-raising to satisfy Ts EPP-requirements. Specically in
connection with the two kinds of V-Aux order usually thought to coexist in ME
Styl-F and a residue of genuine V-Aux orders reecting the OE system we have
shown that a unied analysis in terms of vP-raising eliminates numerous problems
associated with more traditional grammars in competition-based analyses. Addi-
tionally, a vP-raising analysis facilitates an understanding of various coterminous
changes that are usually viewed as independent and unrelated, i.e. as accidentally
coterminous. We have also shown that various ME structures, including simple
verb-containing V2 and V(P)R structures, would have been ambiguous in respect
of the manner in which Ts EPP-requirements are satised, with the result that
the learner could interpret these structures either way, with other evidence in the
input therefore proving crucial in maintaining the optionality-licensing grammar.
Next, we turn to some of the consequences of what we have proposed here.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.23 (1274-1329)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i8,
|. Some consequences
The analysis of V(P)R in ME put forward in the previous section has three interest-
ing consequences. These concern the nature of the order subjectmodalnegative
objectinnitive in 15th-century English, the ultimate loss of vP-movement to
SpecTP, and the reanalysis of modal verbs (a subclass of the class V
R
men-
tioned in the previous section; see van Kemenade 1993). We now describe each
of these in turn.
|.: OV orders with modals in 15th-century English
In terms of our analysis, we can account for van der Wurff (1997, 1999) and Ing-
hams (2002, 2003) observation that in 15th-century English, the only surviving
OV orders involving non-pronominal objects are of the general type subject
modalnegative objectinnitive as illustrated in (19):
(19) ei
they
shuld
should
no
no
meyhir
mayor
haue
have
(Capgrave Chronicles 199.6; cited in Fischer et al. 2000: 163)
As we mentioned in the previous section, modals are the principal exponents of
the class V
R
. We would therefore expect clause union effects in the complements
of modals, with the result that objects and other innitival vP-material can surface
before the matrix verb (V
R
). Note, however, that VP-raising to SpecvP had already
been reanalysed as object-movement by the ME period (i.e. a variety of factors,
discussed in more detail in Biberauer & Roberts 2006a, c had obscured the input
justifying the postulation of the pied-piping option, with the result that the oper-
ation of the Subset Principle had led to the stranding option having become the
norm).
9
Thus the analysis discussed in the preceding section actually only predicts
the availability of the lower-clause object to the left of V during ME. Note further,
though, that object-movement became restricted to negative or quantied DPs in
later ME (cf. van der Wurff and Ingham, op. cit.). B&R analyse this as a restriction
. Biberauer & Roberts (ibid.) identify the paucity in early ME of unambiguous signposts for
the pied-piping (i.e. rigidly head-nal) grammar as the reason for the demise of VP-pied-piping.
Thus, for example, the fact that particle verbs, were, as noted by Spasov (1966; cited in Kroch &
Taylor 2000: 146), vanishingly rare during the 12th and 13th centuries removed one of the clear
indicators that the OE grammar at least had the option of requiring all VP-internal material
to raise into the vP-domain. Similarly, the loss of dative case and the compensatory encod-
ing of indirect objects via PPs led to an increase in leaking/extraposition structures featuring
a post-verbal indirect object, which further weakened the evidence for VP-piedpiping (which
would have produced structures featuring the indirect object and other VP-internal material in
preverbal position).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.24 (1329-1344)
i8o Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
on the nature of vs object-movement-triggering D-feature: whereas D on v was
associated with a movement-triggering EPP-feature during OE, a sub-feature of D
(Neg) bore this feature during the later ME period (cf. also Biberauer & Roberts
2006a). A structure like (18) was thus reanalysed in ME as (20):
(20)
TP
vP
2
T
T vP
2
vP
1
DP-Subj v
v
v VP
TP
INF
V
R
T vP
1
T vP
1
V+v T
Already sent to Spellout:
where vP
1
has the following internal structure (bracketed elements once again be-
ing those that have undergone movement out of vP
1
or, at the appropriate point,
been sent to Spellout and material which is rendered inaccessible by the PIC is
once again given in outline font):
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.25 (1344-1411)
(20)
vP
1
DP
PRO
v
v
(V+v)
DP-Obj
In (20) we have object-movement to SpecvP, triggered by the specialised D-feature
on v, and vP-movement to SpecTP in the lower clause. Exactly the kind of structure
illustrated in (19) is thus predicted, given (a) the analysis of V(P)R put forward in
the previous section, (b) the idea that former remnant VP-movement was reanal-
ysed as object-movement in Early ME, and (c) the idea that only negative objects
could undergo object-movement by Late ME.
A question that arises at this point is what would prevent the matrix v from
also having the relevant type of D-feature. This would attract the object into the
main clause, giving, other things being equal, the unattested order subject object
auxiliary verb. We propose that these orders are not found for an independent
reason, namely the fact that in nite clauses V raises to T at this period (see 4.3
and also Pollock 1989; Roberts 1985, 1993, 1999). Hence the nite verb (V
R
or
auxiliary) will always precede a raised object. We therefore do not absolutely ex-
clude this possibility, but conclude that, in general, it has no effect on surface word
order and certainly does not give rise to subject object auxiliary verb orders.
In fact, there is some evidence for object-raising into the higher clause from
the rare examples where V
R
is also non-nite, giving rise to two innitive clauses.
One such example is given in Beukema & van der Wurff (2000):
(21) . . . so
so
foul
foul
at
that
ou
thou
schalt
shalt
nou3hht
nought
elles
else
mowe
may(inn)
se
see
erynne
therein
bot
but
fylehede
foulness
and
and
wrecchednesse
wretchedness
so lthy that you will not be able to see anything else in it but foulness and
wretchedness
(The Fyve Wyttes, p. 14,1.28ff.; cited in Beukema & van der Wurff 2000: 86)
This is exactly predicted by our analysis.
A further point should be mentioned in this connection. It is wellknown that
some modals were defective in argument structure in ME (see Warner 1983, 1993),
and that the reanalysis of modals involved the loss of argument structure (Light-
foot 1979; Roberts 1985, 1993; Roberts & Roussou 2003). It is therefore likely
that, by Late ME, at least some members of V
R
were associated with a defective
v, one which lacks the relevant D-feature by virtue of its lack of argument struc-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.26 (1411-1450)
i88 Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
ture. There is some indication that v associated with modals could be defective in
ME, from examples with what appears to be a quirky dative subject:
(22) hwi
why
mi
me
ouh
ought
and
and
hwi
why
me
me
scal
shall
iesu
Jesus
crist
Christ
luuien
love
(Ancr. R. (EETS 1952) 6.23, Visser 19631973, 1712; cited in Roberts
1985: 38)
To the extent that verbs with a quirky dative subject argument resemble unac-
cusatives (cf. Belletti & Rizzi 1988), this kind of example would feature a defective
v in the main clause, i.e. one which does not bear an EPP-feature and consequently
cannot attract a negative object to its specier.
Finally, in order to account for van der Wurff s observations about the nature
of relic OV-orders, we also need to exclude a monoclausal structure in which the
object raises, giving SOV order. This can clearly be excluded by appealing to V-
movement to T (see 4.3 below) or C, to the extent that the language was still V2
at this point, on which see Fischer et al. (2000: 129ff.): even if negative object shift
takes place in this case, its effects will be masked by V-to-T(-to-C) movement.
Hence the analysis we propose correctly predicts that the last OV structures in
ME would have presented the surface ordering illustrated in (19) (where the object
is not a pronoun; pronominal object shift survived into Early Modern English, as
shown in Roberts 1995).
|.i The loss of vP-movement
The second consequence of the analysis of V(P)R proposed above is that we can
see how the structure corresponding to (20) with the type of object that by the
15th century fails to raise (i.e. a non-negative object) led to the loss of vP-raising
as a means of satisfying Ts EPP-requirement.
To see how this works, consider the variant of the structure in (20) (which
represents the structure of examples like (19)) without object-movement:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.27 (1450-1490)
(23)
TP
T DP-Subj
(DP-Subj)
vP
T vP
1
T
V+v T
T
DP
PRO
(V+ ) v ( P ) v
1
v
v VP
V
R
TP
As in the case of the adverbial PP in (8), the VP indicated in outline here is merged
as the complement of the lower v, and thanks to the operation of the PIC (as in
Chomsky 2000: 108), this material is sent to Spellout and therefore becomes in-
accessible for further operations as soon as the lower vP is completed. Hence,
movement of this vP to SpecTP has no effect on the surface position of the ob-
ject, which remains nal. What this means is that the choice between pied-piping
vP to the lower SpecTP and exclusively raising the subject to that position, which
was operative throughout ME, has absolutely no effect on the surface order of el-
ements, since the only overt material in vP which the PIC allows to be spelled out
in its moved position is the subject.
Because of the PIC then, later ME acquirers had no clear evidence in V
R
-
containing contexts to distinguish a derivation involving pied-piping of vP to
satisfy Ts EPP-requirement from one in which only the subject moves to satisfy
that requirement: as soon as objects do not raise as readily as they used to in OE
and earlier ME, with the only moving objects being negated ones which only move
in clauses involving some form of obscuring V-movement (cf. 4.1), it becomes
much harder to distinguish DP-raising from vP-raising in V
R
-structures (recall
that V does not come into play as an element contained in vP here as it has already
been sent to Spellout in accordance with the PIC). It is of course possible that the
presence of vP-adverbials or other modiers might disambiguate the two deriva-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.28 (1490-1565)
tions (see 3.2 above), but in the vast majority of cases, the ambiguity would have
been present. We take it that this situation led to the reanalysis of an embedded TP
with the structure in (24) (which corresponds to the embedded TP in (23)) as one
with the structure in (25):
(24)
TP
INF
vP T
DP
PRO
v T t
vP
( ) v V+v T
(25)
TP
INF
vP
T DP
PRO
v
T
( ) v
V+v T (DP)
VP
(V) DP-Obj
We propose that this is how the general option of pied-piping vP to SpecTP was
lost in V(P)R innitival contexts. As the structure in (24) shows, the fronted vP in
innitival contexts may have contained no overt material at all: an empty subject
(here indicated as PRO) and the trace/copy of v. Recall that VP has already been
sent to Spellout, and hence is not realised in the moved position. Given the lack
of evidence for vP-movement, the simpler option of DP-movement was preferred
(assuming that language acquirers always take the simplest option consistent with
the trigger experience, where simplicity is taken to mean the smallest structure
consistent with the input see Clark & Roberts 1993).
10
:o. Note that the phrase consistent with the trigger experience is crucial here: as argued in de-
tail in Biberauer & Richards (2006), economy considerations do not rule out the co-existence of
two means of satisfying a given EPP-feature, i.e. they do not rule out the existence of optionality-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.29 (1565-1575)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i:
What we would now like to suggest is that V(P)R structures represent another
context in which changes in embedded-clause syntax in fact triggered a change in
the matrix-clause system, once again contra Lightfoot (1991). More specically,
we propose that the reanalysis indicated in (24) and (25) was not conned to
the TP complements of V
R
, but that it was actually extended to the matrix TP
in V
R
-containing structures and also to matrix TPs more generally, i.e. also to
those in monoclausal contexts. What we would like to propose is that the fact
that DP-raising was the only available option in contexts like (24)(25) com-
bined with the pre-existing availability of DP-raising as an option for satisfying
Ts EPP-requirements in matrix contexts strongly biased learners in favour of
taking the DP-raising option wherever they could, especially given the general
simplicity preference just mentioned. Ultimately, this therefore led to the loss of
vP-movement (cf. B&R 24f.). As noted in 3.1, the consequences were that only a
DP can satisfy Ts EPP-requirement, and hence expletive insertion became oblig-
atory in contexts where no argumental DP was available for raising (see B&R:
ibid. for further discussion). Furthermore, Styl-F, as analysed in 3.1, was lost
as this possibility crucially depends on the availability of vP-fronting. Our analy-
sis therefore predicts that Styl-F will not be available in languages which require
English-style DP-movement in order to satisfy Ts EPP-requirement (i.e. languages
which do not at least allow vP-raising as an option). This prediction would seem
to be correct as Styl-F was also lost in the Mainland Scandinavian languages, all of
which underwent a subject-related change very similar to that which occurred in
English (cf. Biberauer 2004, 2006 for further discussion).
|. The reanalysis of the modals in ENE
We now turn to the connection between the 15th-century reanalysis described in
the previous section and the well-known reanalysis of a subclass of the members of
permitting pied-piping grammars and there is no sense in which one can speak of an inherent
cost associated with a grammar that permits options. Economy considerations do, however,
come into play in the acquisition context, where a bigger grammar qualies as less economi-
cal in Subset terms and therefore needs to be robustly triggered (cf. Biberauer &Roberts 2006a,c
for more detailed discussion). There is therefore no contradiction involved in maintaining, on
the one hand, that a pied-piping grammar is costless this is the case whenever it is suf-
ciently robustly triggered by the input while asserting, on the other, that acquirers will not,
for reasons of acquisitional economy, postulate a grammar of this kind whenever the input does
not clearly support it. In the current context, we can thus say that maintaining the relevant kind
of pied-piping grammars was economical in OE and earlier ME because it was empirically
motivated, but that the same sort of system became uneconomical at the relevant points in
Englishs history, likewise for input-related reasons.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.30 (1575-1628)
ii Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
V
R
, the modals, as auxiliaries in the early 16th century (see Lightfoot 1979; Roberts
1985, 1993; Roberts & Roussou 2003).
Consider again the structure of a sequence containing a modal with an inni-
tival complement after the reanalysis of (24) as (25). Following Roberts (1993: 262)
and Roberts & Roussou (2003: 4142), we take it that the loss of innitival inec-
tion, which had taken place by 1500, removed the trigger for V-to-T movement in
the complement to V
R
(the assumption is therefore that the innitival inection
specically instantiated features that not only entered into an Agree relationship
with T, but V also had to undergo movement under the inuence of an associated
EPP-feature; cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2006b for further consideration of the corre-
lation between overtly realised inection and movement). In this way, the evidence
for the lower functional T-v systemwas removed fromthe trigger experience of ac-
quirers. Hence (25) was reanalysed in the early 16th century as monoclausal, with
the modals merged in v or T and the lexical verb remaining in V cf. (26):
11
(26)
TP
DP-Subj T
T
Modal
vP
(Subj) v
v VP
V Obj
As pointed out by Roberts (1985, 1993, 1999) and Warner (1997), this reanalysis
in turn contributed to the conditions for the loss of (nite) V-to-T movement later
in ENE by creating a system in which T could always be realised by an auxiliary.
The fact that do underwent the same reanalysis as the modals at about the same
time (see Roberts 1993: 292ff.) is important in this connection since it meant that
any verb and any tense could be associated with an auxiliary. In other words, the
trigger for V-to-T raising was obscured by the development of a class of auxiliaries
(Roberts 1999: 293).
::. This reanalysis cannot apply to ought, which has always been able to take a to-innitive com-
plement, but, as mentioned in Note 8, we consider it likely that this particular modal has a
different diachronic source from the others.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.31 (1628-1662)
Hence we see a clear case of a cascade of changes, each motivated by the one
before, leading by late ENE to a radically different syntactic system from that of
Early ME. We summarise the relevant changes as follows:
(27) a. Loss of VP-to-SpecvP pied-piping, and its replacement by object-move-
ment (12th century; B&R);
b. Restriction of object-movement to negative objects (ca1400; van der
Wurff 1997, 1999 and Ingham 2002, 2003);
c. Loss of vP-to-SpecTP movement, and its replacement by subject-move-
ment/expletive-insertion; and loss of Styl-F (15th century; B&R and
3.1 above);
d. Reanalysis of modals from V
R
to auxiliaries (ca15251550; Lightfoot
1979; Roberts 1985; Warner 1997);
e. Loss of V-to-T movement (ca15751600; Kroch 1989; Roberts 1993;
Warner 1997).
The Modern English system of do-support emerged in the 17th century and was
caused partly by other factors which space considerations do not permit us to
consider here (but see Biberauer & Roberts 2006b where we argue that this is
connected to the development of contracted negation in nt; and see also Warner
1997; Biberauer &Roberts 2006a offers a more detailed discussion of an elaborated
version of the above cascade.).
,. Conclusion
This paper proposes a new interpretation of the ME data concerning the loss of
surface head-nal orders, in line with the general proposals in B&R. It entails a
completely novel rethinking of the alleged instances of Styl-F in ME, which we
consider to be V-Aux orders of a standard, formerly productive type. We also put
forward an analysis of Verb (Projection) Raising, which has a number of inter-
esting consequences for Late ME syntax, notably concerning the last occurrences
of OV order, the rise of a canonical subject position and the concomitant loss of
Styl-F and the 16th-century reanalysis of earlier V(P)R triggers as auxiliaries. Fi-
nally, we were able to propose the sequence of changes in (26). Here we observe an
interesting domino effect of syntactic changes, which may be of theoretical sig-
nicance and certainly represents a ne-grainedand interesting descriptive picture
of the development of a number of aspects of English syntax.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.32 (1662-1769)
i| Mary Theresa Biberauer and Ian Gareth Roberts
References
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. (2003). Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 21, 681735.
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement
and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491539.
Baker, M., Johnson, K., & Roberts, I. (1989). Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry, 20,
219251.
Barbosa, P. (1995). Null Subjects. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych verbs and -theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,
6, 291352.
Berwick, R. (1985). The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Beukema, F. & van der Wurff, W. (2000). Modals, objects and negation in late Middle English.
In S. Barbiers, F. Beukema, & W. van der Wurff (Eds.), Modality and its Interaction with the
Verbal System (pp. 75102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biberauer, T. (2003). Verb Second (V2) in Afrikaans: A minimalist investigation of word-order
variation. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Biberauer, T. (2004). Reconsidering the EPP and Spec-TP in Germanic. In L. Astruc & M.
Richards (Eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics (COPiL), 1 (pp. 1540).
Biberauer, T. (2006). Changes at the edge: Tracking the rise of a canonical subject position in
Germanic. Paper presented at Edges in Syntax (Nicosia).
Biberauer, T. & DAlessandro, R. (2006). Syntactic doubling and the encoding of Voice. Paper
presented at WCCFL21 (Seattle).
Biberauer, T. & Richards, M. (2005). Keeping movement motivated: Optionality without the
tears. In F. Chalcraft & E. Sipetzis (Eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics
(COPiL), 2 (pp. 2745).
Biberauer, T. & Richards, M. (2006). True optionality: When the grammar doesnt mind. In C.
Boeckx (Ed.), Minimalist Essays (pp. 3567). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2005). Changing EPP parameters in the history of English:
Accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 546.
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2006a). Cascading parameter changes: Internally driven change
in Middle and Early Modern English. In T. Eythrsson (Ed.), Grammatical Change and
Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2006b). Subjects, tense and verb movement in Germanic in
Romance. In Proceedings of GLOW V in Asia.
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2006c). The return of the subset principle: A Germanic case study.
Paper presented at CGSW21 (Santa Cruz).
Borer, H. (1986). I-subjects. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 375416.
Breivik, L. (1990). Existential there: A synchronic and diachronic study. Oslo: Novus Press.
Canale, M. (1978). Word Order Change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar.
PhD dissertation, McGill University.
Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language
(pp. 152). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.33 (1769-1883)
Loss of residual head-nal orders in Late Middle English i,
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), The Cartography of
Syntactic Structures, Volume 3: Structures and beyond (pp. 104131). Oxford: OUP.
Chomsky, N. (2005). On Phases. Ms., MIT.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP.
Clark, R. & Roberts, I. (1993). A computational model of language learnability and language
change. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 299345.
Evers, A. (1975). The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. PhD dissertation,
University of Utrecht.
Falk, C. (1993). Non-referential Subjects in the History of Swedish. PhDdissertation, University
of Lund.
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & van der Wurff, W. (2000). The Syntax of Early
English. Cambridge: CUP.
Gray, D. (1985). The Oxford Book of Late Medieval Prose and Verse. Oxford: OUP.
Haeberli, E. (1999a). Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-positions. Synchronic and
diachronic variation in the Germanic languages. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.
(Published as: Haeberli, E. (2002). Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-positions. Cross-
linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Haeberli, E. (1999b). On the word order XP-Subject in the Germanic languages. Journal of
Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 3, 136.
Haeberli, E. (2000). Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English. In S.
Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and mechanisms (pp.
Haeberli, E. & Pintzuk, S. (2004). Revisiting verb (projection) raising in Old English. Talk
presented at the 8th Diachronic Generative Syntax/DiGS Conference (Yale).
Haegeman, L. & van Riemsdijk, H. (1986). Verb projection raising, scope and the typology of
rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 417466.
Hinterhlzl, R. (1999). Restructuring Innitives and the Theory of Complementation. PhD
dissertation: University of Southern California. (Published as: Hinterhlzl, R. (2006).
Scrambling, Remnant Movement, and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: OUP.)
Holmberg, A. (2000). Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an
expletive. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 445483.
Holmberg, A. & Platzack, C. (1995). The Role of Inection in Scandinavian Syntax. New York NY:
OUP.
Hornstein, N. (1999). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ingham, R. (2001). The structure and function of expletive there in pre-modern English. Reading
Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 213249.
Ingham, R. (2002). Negated subjects and objects in 15th century non-literary English. Language
Variation and Change, 14, 291322.
Ingham, R. (2003). The changing status of Middle English OV order: Evidence from two genres.
Sky Journal of Linguistics, 16, 7592.
Kayne, R. (1991). Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647686.
(Republished as Kayne, R. (2000). Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. In R. Kayne
(Ed.), Parameters and Universals (pp. 6097). New York NY: OUP).
Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and Universals. New York NY: OUP.
van Kemenade, A. (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English.
Dordrecht: Foris.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.34 (1883-1991)
van Kemenade, A. (1993). The history of the English modals: A reanalysis. Folia Linguistica
Historica, 13(1), 143166.
Kroch, A. (1989). Reexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and
Change, 1, 199244.
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (1994). Remarks on XV/VX alternation in Early Middle English. Ms.,
University of Pennsylvania.
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (2000). Verb-object order in Middle English. In S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, &
A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms (pp. 132163). Oxford: OUP.
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2005). Beyond Coherence: The syntax of opacity in German. PhD disserta-
tion, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set Parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge MA:
The MIT Press.
Los, B. (1999). Innitival Complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague: HAG.
Los, B. (2005). The Rise of the TO-innitive. Oxford: OUP.
Maling, J. (1990). Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic. In J. Maling & A. Zaenen
(Eds.), Modern Icelandic Syntax (pp. 7191). San Diego CA: Academic Press.
Manzini, R. & Roussou, A. (2000). A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua,
110, 409447.
Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in
Linguistics, 4(2), 201225.
Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry: Movement as a symmetry-breaking phenomenon.
Moss, F. (1968). Manual of Middle English. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Mller, G. (2004). Verb-second as vP-rst Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 7, 139
274.
Pintzuk, S. (1991). Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and change in Old English
word order. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. (Published as Pintzuk, S. (1999).
Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York:
Garland).
Platzack, C. (1988). The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate
clauses. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax,
215238.
Pollock, J-Y. (1989). Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 365424.
Richards, M. & Biberauer, T. (2004). Optionality, loss of inection and the rise of expletives:
Why Faroese is a VO Afrikaans. Paper presented at the Workshop on Faroese (Reykjavik).
Richards, M. & Biberauer, T. (2005). Explaining Expl. In M. den Dikken & C. Tortora (Eds.),
The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories (pp. 115154). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Roberts, I. (1985). Agreement parameters and the development of the English modal auxiliaries.
Roberts, I. (1993). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, I. (1995). Object movement and verb movement in Early Modern English. In H.
Haider, S. Olsen, &S. Vikner (Eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax (pp. 269284).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, I. (1997a). Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In A.
van Kemenade & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change (pp. 397426).
Cambridge: CUP.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:43 F: LA9709.tex / p.35 (1991-2061)
Roberts, I. (1997b). Restructuring, Head Movement and Locality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 423
460.
Roberts, I. (1999). Verb movement and markedness. In M. de Graff (Ed.), Language Change
and Language Creation: Creolization, diachrony and development (pp. 287327). Cambridge
MA: The MIT Press.
Roberts, I. &Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic Change. Aminimalist approach to grammaticalization.
Cambridge: CUP.
Rutten, J. (1991). Innitival Complements and Auxiliaries. PhD dissertation, University of
Amsterdam.
Spasov, D. (1966). English Phrasal Verbs. Soa: Naouka Izkoustvo.
Trips, C. (2002). From OV to VO in Early Middle English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Warner, A. (1983). Review of Lightfoot 1979. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 187209.
Warner, A. (1993). English Auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: CUP.
Warner, A. (1997). The structure of parametric change and V-movement in the history of
English. In A. van Kemenade & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change
(pp. 380393). Cambridge: CUP.
Williams, A. (2000). Null subjects in Middle English existentials. In S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A.
Warner (Eds.), Diachronic Syntax. Models and mechanisms (pp. 164187). Oxford: OUP.
van der Wurff, W. (1997). Deriving object-verb order in late Middle English. Journal of
van der Wurff, W. (1999). Objects and verbs in Modern Icelandic and fteenth-century English:
A word order parallel and its causes. Lingua, 109, 237265.
Visser, F. (19631973). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.
Wurmbrand, S. (2001). Innitives. Restructuring and clause structure. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Zwart, J-W. (1997). Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of
Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zwart, J-W. (2005). Acomparative approach to syntactic change in the history of English. English
Language and Linguistics, 9, 157179.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.1 (55-151)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes
Evidence from Old English and Old High German
Carola Trips
Universitt Stuttgart
This paper surveys word-formation from a diachronic perspective and the ques-
tion of whether word-formations are built by the same principles that govern
syntax. It is assumed that word-formations like compounds and derivations his-
torically start out as syntactic phrases and in the process of becoming morphol-
ogical phrases lose structural syntactic properties like maximal projections and
functional categories as well as semantic properties like e.g. referentiality. This
will be shown with diachronic data from German and English focusing on the
phenomena of the development of sufxes like Modern English -hood, Modern
German -heit, and the rise of genitive compounds. Based on these ndings it will
be claimed that an analysis like Lieber (1992) or Ackema (1999) assuming that
morphological operations are governed by syntactic principles is not borne out
and that word-formation operations have to be attributed to an independent
module of word-formation subject to its own governing principles. Nevertheless,
the rise of genitive compounds shows that new syntactic structures can occur
once old syntactic structures have developed into morphological structures im-
plying that there is interaction between syntax and morphology. Thus, looking at
word-formation from a diachronic perspective provides new insights into the
nature and place of morphology.
:. Introduction
This paper
1
investigates syntactic sources of word-formations assuming that word-
formations like compounds and derivations are part of a morphological compo-
nent in the grammar, and that they historically started out as syntactic phrases
being built in syntax. By doing so, the question of how syntactic phrases develop
:. I would like to thank Jonny Butler, Klaus von Heusinger, Jrgen Pafel, Ingo Plag, Achim
Stein and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. All errors and oversights are my
own.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.2 (151-196)
oo Carola Trips
into words, i.e., compounds (and nally derivational afxes), will be addressed
as well as the question of whether word-formation operations can be subsumed
under syntax (e.g. Baker 1988; Lieber 1992) or have to be attributed to an inde-
pendent module of word-formation subject to its own restrictions (e.g. Lapointe
1980, DiSciullo & Williams 1987).
According to the traditional transformational view, the sentential source hy-
pothesis of word-formation (Lees 1960: 31; Marchand 1969: 31), morphological
composites (compounds, sufxal derivatives, prexal combinations) are reduced
sentences in the form of nouns, adjectives and verbs and as such can be explained
from full sentences. Thus, compounds like the ones in (1) can be explained from
the sentences (we) wash with the machine and (he is) blind with regard to
colours:
(1) a. washing machine
b. color-blind
However, this does not explain the different structural properties of compounds
and sentences, as stated here. Marchand notes
A compound behaves like a simple noun and can therefore only be part of a sen-
tence, but it cannot function as a sentence, except as response utterance. It is thus
different from the sentence itself which is an independent complete utterance. As
the language has created two distinct, though basically related syntagmatic enti-
ties, it will not be enough simply to state that they are related. If we say that a
compound is reducible to a sentence we must explain the difference in terms of
the particular structures of sentence and compound. (Marchand 1969: 32)
In this approach to word-formation, the dependence of morphology on syntax is
very strong, i.e. the underlying structure of every element of word-formation is
a sentence. Although this approach as such is outdated for a number of reasons,
there has been an ongoing debate as to where word-formation takes place, and if
there is such a thing as word syntax, meaning that words are built by the same
principles that govern syntax. To answer these questions, we have to understand
the difference between phrasal structures and morphological structures, as Marc-
hand notes in his quotation. So, what are the differences between the examples
shown below
2
?
i. I would like to stress here that there is, not surprisingly, a plethora of literature on syn-
thetic compounds in the framework of word syntax but hardly any on root compounds. As it
is assumed that synthetic compounds have argument structure they seem to be a suitable phe-
nomenonto demonstrate that word syntax exists. And this is probably also why root compounds
are ignored. Since they have a number of properties different from synthetic compounds and
crucial for the question of whether word syntax can be assumed or not this paper focuses on
this type of compounds.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.3 (196-267)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes o:
(2) a. [XP a green house]
b. a [X
greenhouse]
(3) a. [XP der rote Wein]
b. der [X
Rotwein]
In the literature, a number of differences have been proposed, some of which will
be briey discussed here (for a comparison of the differences found in the litera-
ture see Table 1). First, it has been claimed (a.o. Bauer 2002; Plag 2003) that the
stress patterns of phrases and words differ: in (2a) we nd nuclear stress (stress
on the nucleus of the phrase, i.e., on the head) and in (2b) we nd compound
stress (stress on the left-hand member of the compound). This also applies to the
German examples in (3). Moreover, in a language like German, which exhibits
morphological agreement marking on the noun and its modiers (case, number,
gender), we nd differences between compounds and phrases, shown in (3b) and
(3a): whereas the adjectival rst element in the compound does not agree with the
nominal head, the determiner and adjectival modier in the phrase in (3a) do. If
we tried to modify the nominal head of the compound in (3b) we would get an
ungrammatical string as in (4b)
(4) a. [XP der rote gute Wein]
b. *[X
der Rot gute wein]

If we compare this example to the grammatical (4a), we see that modication of a
phrasal head is, of course, possible.
It has also been shown that compounds cannot contain a determiner (and, in
general, no functional elements):
(5) a. der Menschenhasser (the men-hater)
b. *der Die-Menschen-Hasser (the the-man-hater)
Further, we nd a difference in meaning: Syntactic phrases have a referential in-
terpretation although they can have a non-referential, generic, interpretation in a
restricted context. Compounds (of the type N+N and A+N), on the other hand,
can only have a non-referential interpretation (see also Williams 1989b). This is
illustrated with the examples below:
(6) a. Des Hippies Leben war kurz (ambiguous).
b. Das Hippieleben wird heutzutage oft imitiert (non-referential).
(7) a. The hippies life was short (ambiguous).
b. Nowadays, the hippie life is often being imitated (non-referential).
In both German and English, the examples under a. are ambiguous, they have a
referential interpretation, the determiner and modier of the head noun refer to a
particular entity. Due to the context, they can also have a non-referential interpre-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.4 (267-348)
oi Carola Trips
tation. In the examples under b. where we have the compound Hippieleben hippie
life only a non-referential interpretation is possible.
With respect to the semantics of morphological composites Bauer (1988: 102)
notes that there is a further difference: compounds provide names for entities,
properties or actions whereas a syntactic phrase provides a description. Thus, the
compound judo man provides a name for the person concerned, a sentence like
Hes an expert in judo however provides a description.
The differences discussed in the literature (and to some extent here) are given
in Table 1:
Table 1. Properties of syntactic phrases vs. properties of compounds
Syntactic phrases Compounds
nuclear stress compound stress
nuclear stress rule compound stress rule
agreement no agreement
roter Wein Rotwein
(red-AGR wine) (red wine)
can be modied cannot be modied
des Spargels kstliche Spitzen *die Spargel kstlichen Spitzen
(the asparaguss delicious tops) (the asparagus delicious tops)
nouns can be preceded by det. rst noun cannot be preceded by det.
der Menschenhasser *der Die-Menschen-Hasser
(the men hater) (the the-men-hater)
no idiosyncracies and no lexicalisation idiosyncracies and lexicalisation
not sensitive to internal structure of words sensitive to internal structure of words
no productive/unproductive patterns of sentences productive patterns
The fact that compounds show idiosyncracies and lexicalisation
3
phenomena, and
that they are sensitive to the internal structure of words, will be discussed in Sec-
tion 3 and 4. With respect to the last property listed in Table 1, it should be noted
that in morphology productivity is dened as the property of an afx to be used
to coin new complex words (Plag 2003: 44) or, according to Schultink (1961: 113)
as:
. . . the possibility for language users to coin unintentionally an in principle un-
limited number of new formations, by using the morphological procedure that
lies behind the form-meaning correspondence of some known words.
Fromthese standard denitions it becomes clear that the notion of productivity in
syntax is a completely different matter.
. Lexicalisation is dened here as the process whereby a lexeme takes on a form which it
could not have if it had arisen by the application of productive rules (Bauer 2002: 48). Although
it is a diachronic process, it leaves traces in a synchronic grammar. This means that lexicalised
elements are stored as such in the lexicon.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.5 (348-412)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes o
So far we have seen that from a synchronic perspective there are differences
between syntactic and morphological phrases, affecting all levels of language. In
the following, I will showthat froma diachronic perspective these differences arise
during the development of syntactic phrases into morphological complexes (in a
number of cases) and that they have to be analysed as a loss of structural and
semantic properties. I will present two phenomena from the history of English
and German that support my assumption: 1) the development of sufxes and 2)
the rise of genitive compounds.
In the next section I will start out describing the development of sufxes in
English and German. In Section 3 I will discuss approaches that claim that word-
formation is governed by syntactic principles, like Lieber (1992) and Ackema
(1999). I will show that these approaches run into serious problems taking into
consideration the data from Section 2. In Section 4 I will then present another
phenomenon, the rise of genitive compounds, which will lend further support
to the assumption that the once-syntactic phrases in older stages of English and
German gain non-syntactic properties during their development into word-units,
and that the syntax of words clearly differs from general grammatical principles
(e.g., phrase syntax). Further, I will discuss the consequences of this assumption
to have an independent morphological module in the grammar and claim that
looking at cases of desyntacticisation, i.e., taking a diachronic perspective into con-
sideration, will shed light on the interaction between syntax and word-formation.
Section 5 concludes.
i. The development of sufxes in the history of English and German
The majority of native Germanic derivational sufxes developed from syntactic
phrases via a stage where they are the second constituent of compounds losing
structural and syntactic properties on their way (Tschentscher 1958; Wiesner 1968;
Marchand 1969). One such example is the development of the Modern English
(ModE) sufx -hood from hd which was still a free morpheme in Old English
(OE). If we have a look at the entry of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) we
nd the following information on the sufx:
-hood, sufx
(hd) [ME. -hod (-hode):-OE. -hd = OS. -hd, OHG. -heit.] Orig. a distinct n.,
meaning person, personality, sex, condition, quality, rank (see hd n.), which
being freely combined with nouns, as in OE. cild-hd child-condition, m-hd
virgin state, ppan hd papal dignity, ceased at length to be used as a separate
word, and survived as a mere sufx, and is thus noteworthy as a late example of
the process by which sufxes arose. (OED; version 3.0, 2002)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.6 (412-476)
o| Carola Trips
As noted in the entry, in OE hd was still a free morpheme and occurred as a noun
head preceded by a determiner:
4,5
(8) . . . and
and
cwdon
said
anmodlice
unanimously
t
that
Martinus
M.
wre
were
wyre
worth
[s
Gen,Sg.
the
hades
Gen,Sg.
],
ofce
and
and
geslig
blessed
sacerd
priest
to
to
swilcum
such
bisceopdome.
episcopate
(LS_[Martin]:264.6135)
Further, we nd cases of had modied by a numeral as in (9), an adjective as in
(10), or an NP in the genitive as in (11) and (12). All these cases show agree-
ment between the head noun and its modifer(s). 180 instances of the pattern
modier(s)+ had were found in the corpus.:
(9) &
and
[se
Nom,Sg.
the
ridda
Nom,Sg.
third
had
Nom,Sg.
]
entity
on
on
re
the
halgan
holy
rynnysse
threeness(Trinity)
isse
is the
halga
Holy
Froforgast
Ghost
. . .
(Hom_12:1.1792)
(10) a
then
foron
forthwith
sona
(as) soon
swa
as
hire
their
gemcca
anxiety
ws
was
forfered,
departed
heo
she
wearp
expelled
hire
her
fram
from
[am
Dat,Sg.
the
woruldlican
Dat,Sg.
secular
hade
Dat,Sg.
]
ofce
(GDPref_and_4_[C]:14.279.19.4103)
(11) and
and
seo
she
gefylde
fullled
ysne
this
earfoan
hard
cwyde
speech
urh
through
[
Acc,Sg.
a
the
annysse
oneness
[Cristes
Gen,Sg.
(of) Christ
hades
Gen,Sg.
]];
person
(CHom_II,_28:224.113.4984)
(12) t
that
he
he
r
there
onfenge
received
[
Dat,Sg.
[rcebiscopes
Gen,Sg.
archbishops
hade
Dat,Sg.
]
ofce
(Bede_3:21.248.11.2540)
|. All the data presented here from the diachronic stages of English are extracted from the
following annotated diachronic corpora: The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old En-
glish Prose (Taylor et al. 2003), Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (Kroch & Taylor
2000) and The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (Kroch et al. 2004). The Ger-
man data are from the Bibliotheca Augustana (Harsch 1996) and from the Mittelhochdeutsche
Begriffsdatenbank (MHDBDB, Springeth et al. 2002).
,. The following diachronic data fromEnglish and German are given only with glosses because
for the points made a literal translation is not needed here.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.7 (476-536)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes o,
The same can be shown for German where we nd the free morpheme heit in Old
High German (OHG) texts:
(13) ni
nicht
not
dhiz
dies
this
sii
sei
be
chiuuisso
gewiss
sure
[dher
Nom,Sg
der
the
ander
Nom,Sg
ander
other
heit
Nom,Sg
]
person
person
godes
gottes
god
selbo
selbst
self
druhtin
herr
lord
christ.
christ
christ
(Isidor; Paris, BN, Ms. lat. 2326: 8,21)
(14) oh
oh
oh
in
in
in
[dhem
Dat,Sg
diesen
these
dhrim
Dat,Sg
drei
three
heidim
Dat,Sg
]
personen
persons
scal
soll
shall
man
man
one
ziuuaare
zuwahr
indeed
eina
einen
one
gotnissa
gott
god
beodan.
verkndigen
announce
(Isidor; Paris, BN, Ms. lat. 2326: 21,5)
In (15) hd also occurs with an adjectival modier which is a further source for
word-formations with -hood in Modern English. Interestingly, most of these ad-
jectives are relational adjectives, they denote the ofce or rank of a person. Thus,
e.g. both cyninges hade and cynelica had have the same meaning: rank of a king.
(15) Ac
but
see
he who
r
before
hfde
had
him
himself
an
a
clne
pure
wif,
wife
se
he
wre
were
gecoren
chosen
to
to
[am
Dat,Sg.
the
clnan
Dat,Sg.
pure
hade
Dat,Sg.
],
ofce
swa
just
swa
as
se
the
apostol
apostle
Paulus
P.
on
on
his
his
pistole
epistle
awrat.
wrote
(Let_1_[Wulfsige_Xa]:25.29)
Here, the author does not talk about the properties of the ofce that is pure but
about an ofce for pure persons: somebody was chosen for the pure ofce. Both
patterns, the one with a nominal modier in the genitive and the one with an ad-
jectival modier, showthe beginning of a desyntacticisation process fromsyntactic
phrase to morphological phrase.
Apart from the syntactic phrases with the free morpheme hd as nominal
head we also nd compounds with hd as the second element (i.e., as head of
the compound).
6
o. Trips (2006) shows that due to a semantic shift of hd having the specic meaning ofce
of priest in many religious contexts and losing this specic meaning compounding becomes an
option for the speaker to name persons holding an ofce in general.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.8 (536-595)
oo Carola Trips
(16) Solice
truly
ws
was
geworden
become
a
that
Zacharias
Z.
[his
Gen,Sg.
his
sacerdes
Gen,Sg.
priests
hades
Gen,Sg.
]
ofce
breac
used
on
on
hys
his
gewrixles
vicarious
endebyrdnesse
order
beforan
before
Gode.
God.
fter
After
gewunan
the habit
[s
Gen,Sg.
the
sacerdhades
Gen,Sg.
vicarious-orders
hlotes
Gen,Sg.
]
decisions
he
he
eode
came
t
so that
he
he
hys
his
offrunga
sacrice
sette;
set
(Lk_[WSCp]:1.8.3569)
The example in (16) shows the formal and structural differences between hd as
head of a syntactic phrase (sacerdes hades with agreement marking) and as head of
a compound (sacerdhades only with agreement marking on the head noun). The
following examples also clearly show the absence of agreement marking on the
rst element which is taken to be a diagnostic for compounding.
(17) a
then
he
he
nolde
not-wanted
for
for
[his
Sg.
his
biscop
bishop
hade
Gen,Sg.
]
ofce
hi
they
aweg
away
adrifan, . . .
drive
(GDPref_and_3_[C]:7.188.19.2363)
(18) &
and
[hyre
Sg.
her
mghad
Nom,Sg.
]
virgin state
is
is
ansund,
sound,
. . .
. . .
(Hom_1:420.219)
(19) re
there
tide
time
r
there
on
on
Cent
Kent
heold
held
Honorius
Honorius
[one
Acc,Sg.
the
arcebysceophad
Acc,Sg.
],
archbishop ofce
. . .
(Bede_5:17.452.23.4545)
In Middle English (ME), suddenly a high number (82 cases of a total of 101 cases)
of formations with adjectival bases appear
7
which indicates that the free mor-
pheme hd has developed into a morphological element, a sufx building abstract
nouns:
(20) er
there
opwexe
grows
alle
all
guodes.
good,
uayrhede.
beauty,
richesse.
richnesse,
worssipe.
honour,
blisse.
bliss,
uirtue.
virtue
(CMAYENBI,75.1436)
. This nding is from the Middle English period M2, according to the division of the periods
of the The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2, which is the time span between 1250
and 1350.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.9 (595-656)
The same can be shown for Old High German: here we nd compounds where the
rst element does no longer show agreement marking with the head noun:
(21) meinsuuarteo
meineide
perjuries
enti
und
and
lukino,
lgen
lies
kyridono
begierden
desire
enti
und
and
[unrehtero
Gen
unrechte
unjust
zusheito
Gen
],
schlauheit
slyness
(Altbair. Beicht; Orlans, StB, Hs 184, S. 328,3*)
(22) in
in
in
buachon
buch
book
man
man
man
gimeinti
meint
means
[thio
die(se)
the(this)
iro
ihre
their
chuanheiti].
khnheit
boldness
Ia
ja
yes
ist
ist
is
iu
euch
you
in
in
in
thesa
diesen
these
ziti
zeiten
times
zi
zu
to
[giuuonaheiti],
gewohnheit
habit
(Otfrieds Evangelienbuch I, 4.I)
In Middle High German (MHG) we nd a high frequency of formations with
-heit
8
which indicates that this element has developed into a sufx building ab-
stract nouns:
(23) ich
I
wil
will
euch
you
die
the
warheit
truth
sagen,
tell
(MHDBDB, Der Bergmann, par. 56, line 261)
(24) daz
that
ist
has
von
of
bosheit
wickedness
niht
not
geschen.
happened
(MHDBDB, Die Eule und der Habicht, par. 168, line 54)
The development of -hood in English and -heit in German fromfree morpheme to
bound morpheme
9
presents a structural change: initially, the free morpheme has
syntactic properties and acts as a noun head in syntactic phrases. As soon as this
element develops into a non-syntactic element it loses its syntactic properties: it
cannot function as a noun head in syntactic phrases any longer which is formally
marked by the loss of agreement marking in the noun phrase. This development
must be seen as a desyntacticisation process during which a syntactic element de-
velops into a word-unit with properties that cannot be attributed to syntax but to
morphology.
8. In the MHDBDB which comprises 139 MHG texts I found 186 types and 9801 tokens.
. It is not clear to me why OE hd and OHG heit were lost as free morphemes. Sometimes,
these elements change phonologically and remain in the language as free morphemes like e.g.
English doom vs. the sufx -dom. I assume that a.o. frequency plays a role here but at this point
I have to leave this matter for future research.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.10 (656-700)
o8 Carola Trips
. Are morphological structures the same as syntactic structures?
In the previous section it was shown that syntactic structures can develop into
morphological structures, and it was claimed that the latter ones have properties
different from the former ones. From a theoretical perspective, the diachronic ev-
idence presented here strengthens the claim that morphological structures are not
governedby the same principles that governsyntax. In the literature (mainly Baker
1988 and Lieber 1992) however, it has been put forward that word-formation phe-
nomena adhere to syntactic contraints and therefore should be characterised as
syntactic phenomena (taking place in syntax). Liebers (1992) approach is most
radical in this respect. She claims
In order for phrasal categories to be the input to processes of derivation and com-
pounding, at least some construction of words must be done in the syntax. The
conceptually simplest possible theory would then be one in which all morphology
is done as a part of a theory of syntax. (Lieber 1992: 21)
Under Liebers assumption the construction of words must be done in syntax with
general principles of grammar like the principles of X-bar theory. From what was
shown with the data so far, this seems to be problematic for a number of reasons
that will be discussed in this section. Even Lieber has to admit that
. . . no one has yet succeeded in deriving the properties of words and the properties
of sentences from the same basic principles of grammar. (Lieber 1992: 21)
In the following the properties of the X-bar schema will be discussed and it will
become clear that principles of X-bar theory cannot account for word forma-
tion phenomena which explains why an undertaking such as Liebers cannot be
successful.
.: Headedness, the X-bar schema and referentiality
Liebers (1992) syntactic approach to word-formation is a modication of the X-
bar schema to adapt to morphological needs. However, to achieve this she has
to assume that 1) speciers can appear within the X-bar level, 2) recursion is al-
lowed within the X
level and 3) non-heads need not be maximal projections. All

three modications do not seem to have any independent syntactic justication.
Although it has been claimed by Stowell (1981) that Japanese and German sup-
port the assumption in 1) this claim has seriously been challenged recently. With
respect to the claim in 2) it does not seem to be justied to propose this type of
recursion for syntax, at least Lieber does not provide any evidence in this respect.
The assumption in 3) leads to a generation of structures that are not attested at all
for syntactic units (for a thorough discussion see Borer (1998) and Sproat (1993)).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.11 (700-762)
Another serious problemfor Liebers approach is that she derives the ordering
of elements in complex words from syntactic rules which imply relations between
categories. However, as Meyer (1993: 48) has pointed out
In morphology the concept head is dened with regard to position in complex
words and not in terms of relations between categories. This is a crucial distinction
between the use of the head-concept in syntax and morphology.
The crucial distinction noted by Meyer is implicitly stated by Williams (1981)
famous Right-hand head Rule (RHR) and Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) rule:
(25) Right-hand Head Rule Williams (1981: 248):
In morphology we dene the head of a morphologically complex word to be
the righthand member of that word.
(26) DiSciullo & Williams (1987: 26):
the head (F) of a word is the rightmost element of the word marked for
feature F.
To illustrate this point let us compare a syntactic and a morphological structure:
(27) Syntactic structure: denition of head in terms of relations between categories
FP
Spec F
F
XP
Spec X
X
YP
(28) Morphological structure: denition of head in terms of linear position
X
If we have a look again at some of the diachronic data presented in Section 2, we

see that it is the linear ordering of elements that is the crucial property here:
(29) a foron sona swa hire gemcca ws forfered, heo wearp hire fram
[am
Dat,Sg.
woruldlican
Dat,Sg.
hade
Dat,Sg.
]
(30) and seo gefylde ysne earfoan cwyde urh [
Acc,Sg.
a annysse [Cristes
Gen,Sg.
hades
Gen,Sg.
]];
(31) re tide r on Cent heold Honorius [one
Acc.Sg.
Acc.Sg.
arcebysceophad], . . .
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.12 (762-805)
:o Carola Trips
These examples show that the headedness of compounds is strictly directional be-
cause they develop from noun phrases with prenominal modiers where the head
noun is the rightmost element (modier (A/N) + noun = compound of the type
N+N or A+N). As compounds develop from the linear ordering of modiers and
nominal heads, movement as a way of deriving this order is ruled out.
Further, if we try to apply the right-headedness of morphology to syntax we
see that we have two different notions here: if we consider a language of the type
SOVX then the presence of an element X to the right of the verb would not result
in interpreting this element as the right head of this structure. Rather we would as-
sume movement to derive this conguration, and we would still say that the head
of the clause is V (Borer 1998). This example illustrates the difference between
the two notions of right-headedness in morphology and syntax: in morphology
it is strictly linear, in syntax it is linear based on hierarchical structures (see also
Booij 2005). This difference is also a problem for Liebers approach: for her the
relation between syntactic and morphological headedness has to be consistent
in the sense that if a language is syntactically left-headed, it is morphologically
left-headed, and if a language is syntactically right-headed it is morphologically
right-headed. However, if we just have a look at the two Germanic languages in-
vestigated here, we see that this is not borne out: English is left-headedsyntactically
but right-headed morphologically. Thus, with respect to synthetic compounds we
nd right-headedness although the VP is left-headed. In German, on the other
hand, we nd left-headed APs and NPs, and right-headed VPs and IPs syntac-
tically, but right-headed morphological complexes (where prexal heads are the
exception). The differences between the syntactic and morphological headedness
only between these two languages shows that Liebers approach does not hold (see
also Sproat 1993).
Borer (1998) has noted that the different notions of head in syntax and mor-
phology is also problematic for Kaynes (1994) assumption that the only possible
word order at D-structure is [Specier[Head Complement]]. Thus, he would anal-
yse a language of the type SOV with movement of the object to the left out of its
canonical position to the right of the verb, and he would claim that the effects of
this movement operation could be traced. So it is not the linear ordering, i.e. the
location of the object (and the verb) that determines the head in a structure, but
this is precisely what is stated in Williams RHR. Therefore, this fact and the fact
that in Kaynes structures heads are always generated in the left periphery of X
makes it impossible to unify his notion of head with the RHR.
10
:o. This applies also to word-formation theories that assume a Kaynian structure like e.g.
Drijkoningen (1999) or Josefsson (1998).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.13 (805-858)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes ::
As argued above, the right-headedness ensures that there is a strictly linear re-
lation between the left-handand the right-hand member of a compound where the
left-hand member semantically determines the right-hand member somehow, but
the nature of that relation is unpredictable which is illustrated with the examples
below:
(32) a. Fischfrau (sh woman)
b. Museumsbuch (museum book
11
)
c. stone wall
These compounds (in isolation) are all ambiguous, many relations can be intro-
duced for interpreting them. Thus, Museumsbuch could at least have the meanings
book located in a museum, book about a museum, book published by a mu-
seum, book with a cover showing a museum. This ambiguity results from the
variability of constituent meaning and the number of relations possible within the
compound (see Meyer 1993). This typical characteristic of compounds is another
aspect different from syntax.
Another serious problem for Liebers approach pertains to her Licensing con-
ditions and the way she uses speciers and complements. With respect to the rst
point she proposes the following conditions:
(33) Liebers Licensing conditions (English)
a. Heads are initial with respect to complements.
b. Heads are nal with respect to speciers.
c. Heads are nal with respect to modiers.
(Lieber 1992: 49ff.)
Further, Lieber (1992: 38f.) denes complements as internal arguments obligato-
rily selected by a verb, speciers as quantiers, degree words, subjects, modals, and
modiers as restrictive modiers (that limit the reference of the modied item). If
we try to apply these conditions to types of word-formation we see that root com-
pounds of the type N+N (towel rack) or A+N (greenhouse) adhere to Liebers
licensing condition (33) c., illustrated here with the OE example (34):
(34) re tide r on Cent heold Honorius [one arcebysceophad], . . .
Here, the rst element restricts the extension of the complex word and can as such
be seen as a modier. But sufxes are problematic: according to Lieber, sufxes are
heads of their words providing the category and other morphosyntactic features
of those words. Moreover, and crucially, sufxes select (categorically and seman-
tically) their bases. The stems of derivatives on the other hand are speciers for
::. The -s is a linking morpheme typical of German N+N compounds.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.14 (858-910)
:i Carola Trips
her because they do not transparently modify the whole derivative. Now the claim
that sufxes are heads that select bases and the claim that stems are speciers leads
to a contradiction because in syntax only complements can be selected by heads
(and clearly not speciers). Consequently, her licensing conditions neither work
for syntax nor for morphology.
Ackema (1999) proposes an X-bar schema that is applied both to the struc-
ture of XPs and X
s without the modications Lieber proposed in her theory. His

schema is shown below:
(35) a. X
n
X
n-1
, Y
n
b. X
n-1
X
n-2
, Z
n
c. where n = 0 or 2
(Ackema 1999: 4)
For syntax, the value of n is 2, for morphology it is 0. This results in structures like
(36) X
2
Spec
X
1
X
Spec
X
-1
X
-2
compl
compl
As in syntax, there is a structural distinction between speciers and complements.
Moreover, X
has a special status, because it functions as maximal projection in

morphology, and at the same time, it is the head of a maximal projection XP in
syntax.
Although Ackemas syntax below zero model seems to be formally attractive
at rst sight, there are a number of problems: rst, he assumes that hierarchical
structure and the relations between elements (difference between specier, head
and complement) are relevant in morphological structure. Second, the structure
in (36) implies that speciers and complements in syntax have the same properties
as in morphology. Third, he has to assume subword structures, and, what is more
problematic, two distinct heads with two distinct maximal projections within a
single maximal projection. Moreover, in examples like happy and unhappy the
head happy always has to be A
-2
, implying that the head has the following structure
(Ackema 1999: 6):
(37) [
A0
[
A-1
[
A-2
happy]]]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.15 (910-979)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes :
It should be noted that although Ackema assumes that morphological operations
are governedby syntactic principles, he does not claimthat they are built in syntax.
.i Consequences for an analysis of the diachronic data: Loss of structure and
loss of referentiality
The critical discussion of Liebers and Ackemas approach in the previous section
has shown that for theories assuming the same principles for syntax and mor-
phology serious problems arise, especially if we look at fundamental notions such
as headedness. This becomes even more evident if the diachronic data presented
in Section 2 are considered. What I will suggest here is that when free morphemes
functioning as phrasal heads develop into bound morphemes functioning rst as
heads in morphological complexes, and nally as sufxes, there is a transition
from syntactic structure to morphological structure implying loss of functional
categories and maximal projections. Thus, the syntactic phrase
(38) [
DP
[
DP
rcebiscopes] [
NP
hade]]
has a structure like
(39)
DP
DP
D
D
NP
N
N
YP
On its way to becoming a morphological element, the phrase is stripped of struc-
ture, more precisely functional structure. What remains is lexical structure on the
word level (i.e. it lacks maximal projections):
(40) [
N
[
N
arcebysceop] [
N
had]]
(41)
N
This structure can then be inserted as such at D-structure, under N, resulting in a

phrasal syntactic structure NP.
Formal evidence for this development is the fact that agreement cannot oc-
cur any longer (for an analysis of the so-called linking morphemes see Section
4). Moreover, if we were to analyse morphological complexes syntactically, e.g.
via head-to-head movement, we would have to explain why material that appears
in syntactic structure does not appear in word structure. This has been noted
by Ackema & Neeleman (hence A & N, 2001; 2004). They claim that verbal id-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.16 (979-1034)
:| Carola Trips
ioms (a. o.) like the Dutch heartenbreeker heart breaker cannot be explained by
incorporation:
(42) a. dat
that
hij
he
Maries
Marys
hart
heart
vaak
often
heeft
has
gebroken.
broken
(Ackema & Neeleman 2001: 45)
b. *hij
he
is
is
een
a
[
NP
[
N
[
V
harten
hart
breek]
breaker
er] [
VP
vaak
often
t
V
[
NP
Maries
Marys
en
and
Sues
Sues
t
N
]]]
(Ackema & Neeleman 2001: 48)
The example in (42a) a. shows the syntactic idiom iemands hart breken to break
someones heart, and the example in (42a) b. the synthetic compound derived by
incorporation from the syntactic idiom. It should be possible to strand material if
this element was derived syntactically. But, as the example in b. clearly shows, this
is not the case, the example is ungrammatical. Therefore, in word-formation ma-
terial that is obligatorily present in syntax must be omitted, which is only possible
if the element is realised in morphology.
12
The observed loss of referentiality in compounds (see also Section 4) follows
from this assumption. Williams (1989b: 286) claims that . . . the notion of refer-
ence is tied to the syntactic notion of maximal projection, and hence should play
no role in morphology. If we further assume, in line with Williams (1989a) and
Ackema (1999), that the argument structure of nouns contain a R(eferential)-role
that has to be discharged by D, then a denite determiner is needed to make a ref-
erential reading possible. But since the functional categories of syntactic structure
are lost during the development described above, there is no way to discharge the
R-role. These two assumptions explain why compounds like (40), and compounds
in general, can only have a non-referential interpretation.
There is another observation showing the structural and semantic difference
between syntactic structure and morphological structure: It has been noted by A
& N (2001) that in N+V compounds in English (and other languages) the noun
can never function as the internal argument of the verb.
13
The following examples
lillustrate this:
(43) a. to window shop = to shop windows
b. to hand-make = to make hands
c. to air-condition = to condition air
:i. This observation is also a problem for the Distributed Morphology model proposed by
Marantz (1993).
:. This seems also to be true of A+N compounds in English, e.g. greenhouse.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.17 (1034-1057)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes :,
These compounds all have an unpredictable interpretation, an idiomatic meaning.
So the N+V compound hand-make in (43b) cannot mean to make hands etc.,
but, of course, it would be possible to express this meaning with a sentence like he
makes twenty hands every day where we have a fully compositonal meaning, i.e.
where hands functions as the internal argument of the verb make (this sentence
is, of course, only plausible in a specic context, like e.g. he is a potter making
hands of clay). According to A & N this can be explained if it is assumed that
listing is costly (lexical storage should be kept to a minimum). Since there is a
regular process in syntax to express the relation between a verb and its internal
argument, and since generation of syntactic structure is the unmarked case (in
their model), there is no way to express this relation in morphology. According to
A&Nsyntax blocks morphology in this case. This implies that syntactic structures
and morphological structures have different properties leading to the activation of
either syntax or morphology.
In this section, it has been shown that morphological structure differs from
syntactic structure structurally and semantically, and that this difference is trace-
able if the development of syntactic structures into morphological structures is
taken into consideration. Therefore, it is assumed here that word-syntax (in
the sense that word-formation is governed by syntactic principles) does not exist
and, moreover, that morphological complexes are built in an autonomous word-
formation component.
14
To strengthenthis claim, further diachronic evidence will
be presented in the next section.
|. Further evidence: The rise of genitive compounds in the history
of German and English
In this section, the rise of genitive compounds in German and English will be dis-
cussed. It will be shown that with respect to this phenomenon there are parallels
between the two languages involving a reanalysis of syntactic structure as mor-
phological structure. This reanalysis serves as further evidence for the claim that
word-formation is not governed by syntactic principles and that it is part of an
autonomous morphological component of grammar.
:|. This does not imply per se, however, that there is no interaction between syntax and
morphology.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.18 (1057-1136)
:o Carola Trips
|.: German
In OHG we nd two types of compounds: 1) the type N+N where the rst con-
stituent is a nominal stem with a compositional vowel as in tag-a-sterro (morning
star). In some cases this vowel is replaced by -e as in hove-e-stat (farmstead)
or completely deleted as in got--spel (gospel); this is an Indoeuropean word-
formation pattern which is very productive in OHG (see e.g. Paul [1880]1995);
2) the type N+N where the rst element bears genitive case and thus shows a
syntactic relation between the rst and the second constituent as in senefes korn
(mustard seed). According to Grimm(1826: 599) this type of compound is rather
seldom in OHG. In fact, it is not clear whether we have a phrase here or a com-
pound. This structural ambiguity is due to the fact that in OHG we predominantly
nd genitive attributes in prenominal position:
(44) senefes korn (mustard seed)
a. [NP [NP senefes] korn]
b. [NP senefes korn]
(Demske 2001: 298)
The string senefes korn can be interpreted as a complex noun with a prenominal
genitive as in (44) a. or as a nominal compound as in (44) b. Only in the rst case
can we speak of a syntactic phrase since referentiality is a property of maximal
phrases.
In the literature, it has generally been assumed that genitive compounds de-
velop from lexicalised phrase structures and that the rise of these compounds
correlates with the postposing of genitive attributes in Early New High German
(ENHG). Pavlov (1983) assumes that the rise of genitive compounds is due to the
structural ambiguity of nominal phrases. There are two patterns that show this
ambiguity: 1) structures with a determiner where the determiner either refers to
the head noun or to the prenominal genitive attribute of a syntactic phrase, and 2)
structures without a determiner:
(45) wegen der Kirchen Ceremonien (because of the churches ceremonies)
a. [ [ der Kirchen] Ceremonien]
b. [ der Kirchen Ceremonien]
(Demske 2001: 300)
(46) fewres ammen (res ames)
a. [ [ fewres] ammen]
b. [ fewres ammen]
(Demske 2001: 301)
In both cases the rst constituent (der Kirchen and fewres) can have either a ref-
erential or a non-referential (generic), interpretation. Like the example in (44),
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.19 (1136-1174)
only the rst structures can be interpreted as syntactic phrases since referential-
ity is a property of maximal phrases. Pavlov (1983) appeals to the principle of
isomorphism which assumes a one-to-one relation between form and meaning.
Thus, he sees this development as a means to avoid structural ambiguity. Demske
(2001), however, claims that the rise of genitive compounds is not simply the re-
sult of reanalysing structurally ambiguous patterns but the result of fundamental
changes in the nominal phrase in the history of German. She shows that these
changes affected the relation between the head noun and its prenominal attributes
which led to the postposing of genitival complements.
15
She points out that under
Pavlovs assumption the sudden increase of genitive compounds in ENHG can-
not be explained since the structural ambiguity existed already in OHG.
16
For her,
the ENHG examples shown above are lexicalised syntactic structures rather than
compounds that still existed in ENHG. Evidence for this claimis the fact that these
structures clearly show a referential interpretation:
(47) ausser
apart-from
dessen
that
wollen
want
sie
they
(. . . )
. . .
auch
also
[de
this
vorigen
previous
Landtags
parliaments
schluss]
resolution
(Demske 2001: 302)
(48) was
what
dann
then
[landes
lands
werung]
currency
ist/
is
[wo
where
ainer
one
mitt
with
dem
the
seckel
bag
ist]
is
(Demske 2001: 303)
In both examples the rst elements refer to a particular entity (a particular parlia-
ment in (47) and a particular land in (48)). In (47) this interpretation is forced by
the determiner de and the adjective vorigen.
Demske further claims that not until ENHG are these lexicalised structures
reanalysed as nominal compounds, evidence of which is the mentioned increase of
this pattern that could otherwise not be explained. Thus, due to the fundamental
changes in the nominal system, animate and inanimate particular nouns that in
ENHG could be used as prenominal genitives as shown in (49):
(49) a. des hertzogen von Burgundien diener (the duke of Burgundys servant)
:,. Due to a number of changes in the nominal system in ENHG the relation between the
article and the head noun is newly dened. This change has consequences for the possessive
pronoun which is reanalysed as possessive article as well as the attributive genitive which is also
reanalysed as part of the article system.
:o. Demske notes that the (rare) cases of N+N compounds in OHG are isolated cases that are
the result of analogical processes. These processes, however, could not motivate the establish-
ment of a new word-formation pattern because the frequency of these cases is too low.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.20 (1174-1223)
:8 Carola Trips
b. der vinde vffsatz (the enemys essay)
c. der sachen vrteiler (the things judge)
(Demske 2001: 215)
could not be used in this position any longer which resulted in postposing them.
Demske notes that these nouns do not have a possessive relation with its head
noun (genitivus qualitatis, genitivus explicativus, genitivus denitivus) and are
thus not interpretable as possessive. On the other hand, those nouns that have a
possessive relation with its head noun, like the genitivus possessivus, the genitivus
subjectivus and the genitivus objectivus can also be expressed with a possessive
pronoun and therefore they can occur in prenominal position. Thus, we nd the
following distribution of attibutive genitives in Modern German (ModG):
(50) a. Pauls Ernennung (Pauls nomination)
b. ein Mann der Vernunft (a man of reason)
c. die Mglichkeit der Entspannung (the possibility of relaxing)
d. das Laster der Trunksucht (the vice of alcoholism)
(Demske 2001: 247)
Since the prenominal genitive was not available any longer, the existing lexicalised
structures were reanalysed as a morphological pattern, and in this way the rise
of a new word-formation pattern was possible. It should also be noted that the
prenominal genitive with proper nouns that is still possible in ModG (see example
(50a) is analysed by Demske as a lexically marked afx of possession and not as an
instantiation of genitive case. For her, it is a lexical rule for proper nouns which
have a headlike status (i.e., they are not phrases).
According to Demske the reanalysis of syntactic lexicalised structures as mor-
phological structures can be described as the loss of a word boundary but it also
includes a structural reinterpretation, i.e., the language learner reinterprets the
given surface structure by attributing to it another base structure. Under the as-
sumption that language change happens during language acquisition (e.g. van
Kemenade 1987; Kroch 1989) the learner deduces a syntactic or morphological
structure from the input she gets that has to be compatible with her grammar. In
the case at hand, the learner has evidence that the existing prenominal genitives
have properties attributed to morphological complexes (e.g. non-referentiality,
compound stress etc.) and therefore the learner reanalyses the lexical syntactic
structures as morphological structures. However, this can only happen if old and
new structures have a number of properties in common. Since syntactic and mor-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.21 (1223-1280)
phological structures share a number of properties (binary structures, recursive
structures, endocentric structures) this seems to be a plausible assumption.
17
Evidence for Demskes claim that morphological structures exist in ENHG is
the reanalysis of the sufx marking genitive case: here, the reanalysis of the noun
phrase as morphological phrase leads to the reanalysis of the inectional ending
as a linking morpheme (Fugenmorphem), evidence of which is the fact that this
genitive sufx also occurs in genitive compounds where the rst element originally
does not show it because it is not part of its paradigm (strong feminine nouns and
weak nouns):
(51) a. von den Regierungs-Rthen (der Regierung Rthe) (government civil ser-
vant)
b. des Bawers-man (des Bauern-mann) (farmer man)
(Demske 2001: 308)
In cases like (52) belowwe nd the genitive singular formas rst element although
the interpretation in terms of a transparent syntactic phrase would require the
plural form here:
(52) weib kleider (womans clothes), mynchs orden (monks order)
(Demske 2001: 310)
These examples can only be explained if it is assumed that their structures have
been reanalysed as word structures implying that 1) inectional afxes are no
longer governedby inectional rules and 2) the rst part of the phrase is reanalysed
as part of the compound, and the compound as a whole gets case.
Moreover, the referential (possessive) interpretation becomes obsolete and
only a non-referential, generic, interpretation is possible:
(53) 1546: die
who
in
in
Schafskleidern
sheep clothes
zu
to
euch
you
komen
come
(Demske 2001: 309)
Further support for this assumption is the rise of copulative compounds in ENHG
as shown in (54). In this type of compound we nd a coordination relation be-
tween the two elements that cannot be lexicalised as a syntactic phrase.
(54) alle Manspersonen all mans persons, Leibs Erben bodys heirs
(Demske 2001: 311)
:. I would further claim that the learner has evidence that these structures are more marked
(e.g. they are more restricted at least wrt their semantics and frequency of occurrence) as
opposed to the syntactic structures with postnominal genitive.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.22 (1280-1329)
io Carola Trips
Demske points out that especially the rise of the linking morphemes presents evi-
dence for a lexical analysis of genitive compounds that could not be explained with
a syntactic analysis.
For the development of compounding as a morphological process Demske
proposes the following three stages: In OHG noun phrases with prenominal geni-
tive attribute occur. They clearly have the status of syntactic phrases. In the course
of time some of these phrases are lexicalised; nevertheless they are syntactically
transparent as they show a referential interpretation and allow modiers of the
rst constituent. Finally, these lexicalised syntactic structures are reanalysed as
morphological structures that then display syntactic opacity.
The rise of genitive compounds (in German) is a further instance of desyntac-
ticisation: once-syntactic structures are reanalysed as morphological structures. In
German, due to the fact that the relation within the noun phrase changes, a re-
analysis of the prenominal genitive as possessive phrase becomes possible which
then leads to the postposing of genitive complements in ENHG implying the rise
of new syntactic structures. In the next section we will see that in English we nd
a development resembling the one described for German.
|.i English
With respect to the development of genitive compounds we nd a similar picture
in English. In OE two types of compounds occur: 1) the Indoeuropean word-
formation pattern of N+N compounds where the rst constituent is a nominal
stem with compositional vowel (Sauer 1992: 81). However, in almost all cases this
vowel has been reduced to a linking morpheme -e as in hilderinc battle man; 2)
the genitive compound where the rst element bears genitive case as in cinnesmen
kinsmen. As in German, we have a situation where morphological structures co-
exist with syntactic structures, and sometimes it is not clear whether we have a
phrase or a compound. According to Sauer (1992: 152) a clear case is
(55) a. cinnesmen kinsmen
b. . . . wi [heora agenes cynnes mannum] with their own kins men
As in German, this structural ambiguity is due to the fact that in OE we predomi-
nantly nd nominal genitives in prenominal position.
McLagan (2003) notes that factors for preplacement are animacy, high pro-
totypicality of possessive relationship and one-word-hood. The second factor can
also be described by the contrast between a referential and a non-referential inter-
pretation as mentioned above. Thus, we nd ambiguous cases like (56)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.23 (1329-1395)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes i:
(56) Eode
went
a
then
to
to
anum
one
drymen
sorcerer
[e
who
deoes
devils
crft]
craft
cue,
knew
(LS_[Basil]:364.697)
where both a referential and a non-referential interpretation are possible. Both
readings are given in (57).
(57) a. referential: the craft of devil (itself)
b. generic: craft typical of the devil
In her study, McLagan (2003) observes that during the eleventh century preposed
genitive phrases become even more frequent (rising from 69.1% around 1000 to
77.4% around 1100). She also cites a study from Yerkes (1982) which shows that
the reviser of Gregorys Dialogues (who worked some time between 950 and 1050)
transposed many genitive phrases in the text fromafter the nominal head to before
the head noun in such a way that the placement clearly differed from the original
Latin version. Allen (1998: 20) observes that
. . . even in the OE period, post-head genitives were on the decline, and . . . this
initial decline cannot be explained as a consequence of reduced inection.
According to what was said above for German, there seem to be parallels between
German and English. Demske (2001) notes, that the fundamental changes ob-
served in the nominal system in the history of German can also be found in the
nominal system in the history of English.
18
These changes consequently led to the
rise of genitive compounds, which can be attributed to the reanalysis of syntac-
tic structure (genitive phrase) as morphological structure (genitive compound).
Under this assumption, the sudden rise of the pattern observed by McLagan can
be explained along the lines of the rise of the pattern in ENHG as will be shown
below.
Although there does not seem to be a direct correlation between the changes
in the nominal system and the loss of morphological distinctions between the OE
and the ME period, the latter could have been one factor that promoted some of
these changes. In her study, Allen (1998, see also Allen 1995) shows that in the
twelfth century morphological case marking was still well-preserved in the south-
ern dialects but started to disappear in the northern dialects. In the thirteenth
century, agreement inection had become optional (depending on dialect). Allen
further notes that at that time the correlation between agreement and postnom-
inal genitive breaks down resulting in the fact that the postnominal genitives are
consistently restricted to partitive relations:
:8. As in German, in English the relation between the article and the head noun is newly de-
ned. According to Demske, this change has the same consequences as in German: the possessive
pronoun and the attributive genitive are both reanalysed as part of the article system.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.24 (1395-1459)
ii Carola Trips
(58) And
and
he
he
wi
with
t
that
hef
raised
up
up
hetelest
cruellest
alre
all
Gen
wepne.
weapons
gen
And with that, he raised up the cruellest of all weapons
(Allen 1998: 19)
Allen assumes that these genitives are all selected lexically by their head implying
that postnominal genitives were no longer structurally case marked. Moreover,
she notes that genitives of the objective, subjective or possessive type were no
longer found in this position. As shown in 4.1, the same semantic restriction can
be found for the postnominal genitives in German which is evidence for changes
in the nominal system (the relevant change here is that genitival attributes are re-
analysed as part of the article system). The restriction of postnominal genitives
in EME also depends on semantic factors, which makes it plausible to assume
that this nding reects the same change in the nominal system as proposed for
German by Demske, independent of the loss of agreement marking. Since the pos-
sessive relation could be expressed with a prenominal genitival noun and head
noun as well as with a possessive pronoun the latter could occur in prenominal
position. As this relation could no longer be expressed with postnominal geni-
tives, it started to be expressed more frequently in prenominal position, and this
explains the rise of prenominal genitives observed by McLagan. Strikingly, in a
study on prenominal genitives (nouns) in EME, I found that 451 out of 457 cases
show 1) a non-referential interpretation, 2) no article:
(59) att
that
lare
teaching
att
that
wass
was
all
all
bisett
lled
Wi
with
[nahhtess essterrnesse].
nights darkness
(CMORM,II,236.2482)
(60) I
I
charge
charge
e
you
at
at
my
my
blissyng
blessing
kepe
keep
i
your
body
body
klene
clean
at
at
e
the
lest
least
fro
from
[womanys feleschep]
womans fellowship
tyl
til
u
you
take
take
a
a
wyfe
wife
aftyr
after
e
the
lawe
law
of
of
e
the
Chirche.
church
(CMKEMPE,222.3577)
These ndings show that the genitive -es ending was no longer analysed as an
inectional marker (non-referential interpretation of the prenominal genitives).
Thus, it has to be assumed that these structures were reanalysed as a morpho-
logical pattern and the rise of the word-formation pattern N
Gen
+N was possible.
Moreover, the gradual loss of inectional endings led to syncretism of vocalic gen-
itive endings in -e (-e for Sg., -a for Pl.)
19
and consequently to an unclear status
of inectional endings in general. Furthermore, the -s genitive form increased (as
:. In ME, the -e ending was also a reex of the syncretism of the OE nominative endings -a,
-e, -o, -u.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.25 (1459-1503)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes i
well as the syntactic of-genitive
20
). Accordingly, we nd cases where different forms
of prenominal genitives (nouns) coexist (in one text):
(61) a. heuene lyhte heaven light
b. heueryche heaven realm
c. heuen kynge heaven king
(Sauer 1992: 89)
These forms all have the word heaven as rst element. In a. we nd an -e-ending on
heaven, in c. we nd the same context but no -e-ending. The formin b., heueryche,
is a contracted form of heaven and ryche, it shows phonological changes and is
lexicalised. These examples illustrate that the genitive endings here are no longer
governed by transparent inectional rules, the examples are all isolated elements,
i.e., compounds.
In some texts, e.g., in the Ormulum, we nd the coexistence of an N+N com-
pound, an N-es+N compound (note the non-referential interpretation) and the
same noun hirde shepherd with a postnominal of -phrase:
(62) a wass he [shepess hirde], . . .
(CMORM,I,123.1067)
(63) Crist iss all se Davi wass [Shephirde], king, & kemmpe.
(CMORM,I,123.1063)
(64) & Crist iss [hirde off hise shep], . . .
(CMORM,I,123.1068)
As noted in Section 4.1, Demske claims that the occurrence of linking morphemes
are strong evidence for the reanalysis of the sufx marking genitive case. This
seems also to be borne out for English: in ME a number of linking morphemes
start to arise:
(65) a. OE nihtegale, ME nihtingale
b. OE lof-song, ME lof tsong
c. OE handgeweorc, ME handiwerc
(Sauer 1992: 82)
Moreover, as in German, the genitive -es sufx nowalso occurs on the rst element
in compounds although in OE this form is originally not part of that elements
paradigm:
io. It has been claimed that the rise of the of -phrase is due to French inuence (e.g. Lightfoot
(1999), Allen (2002)). To my knowledge, however, there is no empirically well-founded study
that proves this assumption (see also Fai (1992)).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.26 (1503-1556)
i| Carola Trips
(66) a. OE burg-tun, ME burgess tun
b. OE land-man, ME londes-men
(Sauer 1992: 157)
Therefore, it can be assumed that at this stage in the history of English inectional
afxes are no longer governed by inectional rules. The genitival modier of the
head noun is reanalysed as part of the compound since the whole complex word
gets case.
Another parallel between German and English is that copulative compounds
also arise as another productive pattern (not possible as syntactic structure) to
form compounds:
(67) a. ME burgess tun (castle-town)
b. ME leodes-folk (men-folk)
c. ME shepess lamb (sheep-lamb)
(Sauer 1992: 420)
From what was said above we can assume then that, as in German, the syntactic
lexicalised structures (prenominal genitive) have been reanalysed as word struc-
tures. This reanalysis leads to the rise of postnominal syntactic structures, the
genitive of -phrase. The development of new syntactic structures can be seen as
a consequence of this reanalysis.
In Section 3 A & Ns model was briey discussed. If it was applied to the rise of
genitive compounds in German and English we would have to assume that in the
course of time the syntactic pattern loses its properties (transparency, referential-
ity, functional structure) and is replaced by morphological structure. In this case,
morphology blocks syntax. This blocking then leads to new syntactic structures.
In English, another possibility arose: in ME the possessive marker was reanal-
ysed as a clitic
21
being part of syntax, rather than an inectional marker, being part
of morphology. Allen (2002) claims that a clitic analysis has to be assumed at least
for some possessives by the late fourteenth century, when the rst examples of the
group genitive started to appear:
(68) e
the
king
king
of
of
Fraunces
Frances
men
men
(Allen 2002: 63)
i:. Allen has shown that the Saxon-Genitive (s) in ModE is a clitic attached to the preceding
element (DP). The so-called group genitive where the clitic is attached to a DP group is a late
ME innovation (rst to coordinate genitive phrases and appositive genitive constructions, and
later on to possessive NPs that did not end with a possessor).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.27 (1556-1628)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes i,
This phenomenon is still found in ModE:
(69) a. an old mans book
b. the man with the whistles book
(Demske 2001: 245)
Although there are striking similarities between German and English with respect
to the rise of genitive compounds, the following differences should be pointed
out: in German, the changes described above happen in ENHG (13501650), in
English these changes happen much earlier, in Early Middle English (11501350).
It was argued above that the loss of the postnominal genitive as well as the rise of
genitive compounds seem to be the result of fundamental changes in the nominal
system and not the result of the loss of morphological case marking. However, the
fact that these changes happened much earlier in English could well be attributed
to the latter change because it affected all elements (determiners, adjectives, pos-
sessives) that were involved in the change of the nominal system and therefore
possibly catalysed this change. This would also explain why we nd many N+N
compounds with a possessive interpretation (like e.g. beehive etc.) but without a
linking morpheme and just few of that type with this element:
(70) a. ME domes-dei, pentecostes-dei, cinnes-men, Cristes-tyde, steoress-mann
b. EModE kinswoman, kinsmen, huntsman, bedeswoman
c. ModE doomsday, kinsmen, Wednesday, Thursday, daisy
Moreover, the structural differences between the prenominal genitive in ModG
and ModE could also be attributed to the loss of agreement in ME: in the for-
mer language it is a possessive afx governed by lexical rules, whereas in the
latter language it is a clitic (non-head status) that attaches to phrases. Although
the correlation between the changes in the nominal system, the rise of genitive
compounds and the loss of morphological case marking need further in-depth in-
vestigation, the observations made above indicate that there are parallels between
German and English, and that there are desyntacticisation processes that shed new
light on the difference between syntactic and morphological structure.
Table 2 summarises the similarities and differences of this development in
both languages:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.28 (1628-1704)
io Carola Trips
Table 2. The rise of genitive compounds: comparison German and English
German English
prenominal genitive possible prenominal genitive possible
Vaters Buch, Erics Buch fathers book, Erics book
(nouns [+animate], personal reference) (nouns [+animate], personal reference)
but never with generic reference but never with generic reference
postnominal genitive possible postnominal genitive not possible
die Ordnung des Landes, *the law the lands
die Bcher der Kinder but Saxon-Genitive (clitic s)
both generic and referential group genitive Peter and Johns house
independent genitive (at Freds)
postnominal genitive with von postnominal genitive with of
Das Buch von Vater, the front of the house,
die Bcher von den Kindern the books of the children
,. Conclusion
In this paper it was argued that there are syntactic sources of word-formation pro-
cesses showing a transition from syntactic structures to morphological structures
and thus can be seen as instances of desyntacticisation. The phenomena described
in Section 2 and 4 have strengthened the assumption that morphological struc-
tures are not the same as syntactic structures, especially by looking at the notion of
headedness and structural hierarchy. These ndings demonstrate that an analysis
like Lieber (1992) or Ackema (1999) claiming that all word-formation phenom-
ena are governed by syntactic constraints and hence are syntactic phenomena is
not borne out. Further, it was shown that morphological structures have semantic
properties that are different from syntactic structures (only generic interpretation
possible vs. ambiguity of generic and referential interpretation). The fact that new
syntactic structures occur (of -genitive) once the old syntactic structures (prenom-
inal genitive) developed into morphological structures (genitive compounds) are
evidence for the assumption that morphology can block syntax (in the sense of
Ackema & Neeleman 2001). The phenomena and their properties described above
show that diachronic studies provide new insights into the interaction between
syntax and morphology.
References
Ackema, P. (1999). Issues in Morphosyntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 26]. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. (2001). Competition between syntax and morphology. In G.
Legendre et al. (Eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax (pp. 2960). Oxford: OUP.
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. (2004). Beyond Morphology. Oxford: OUP.
Allen, C. L. (1995). Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Mod-
ern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.29 (1704-1881)
Syntactic sources of word-formation processes i
Allen, C. L. (1998). Loss of the post-head genitive in English. In ALS98 papers in proceedings,
126. http://www.als.asn.au/: last viewed 12/03/06.
Allen, C. L. (2002). Case and Middle English genitive noun phrases. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syn-
tactic Effects of Morphological Change (pp. 5787). Oxford: OUP.
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago IL: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Bauer, L. (1988). Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: EUP.
Bauer, L. (2002). English Word-Formation (9th edition). Cambridge: CUP.
Booij, G. (2005). The Grammar of Words. Oxford: OUP.
Borer, H. (1998). Morphology and syntax. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook
of Morphology (pp. 151191). Oxford: Blackwell.
Demske, U. (2001). Merkmale und Relationen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
DiSciullo, A.-M. & Williams, E. (1987). On the Denition of Word. (2nd edition). Cambridge
MA: The MIT Press.
Drijkoningen, F. (1999). Antisymmetry and the lefthand in morphology. Catalan Working Pa-
pers in Linguistics (7), 7187.
Fai, K. (1992). English Historical Morphology and Word-formation: Loss versus enrichment. Trier:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Grimm, J. (1826). Deutsche Grammatik. Hildesheim: Olms (Nachdruck).
Harsch, U. (Ed.). (1996). Bibliotheca Augustana. Augsburg: Fachhochschule Augsburg.
Josefsson, G. (1998). Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today
19]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25]. Cambridge
MA: The MIT Press.
van Kemenade, A. (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dor-
drecht: Foris.
Kroch, A. (1989). Reexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and
Change, 1, 199244.
Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L. (Eds.). (2004). The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early
Modern English (PPCEME). Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (Eds.). (2000). The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second
Edition (PPCME2). Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Lapointe, S. G. (1980). A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. PhD dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lees, R. B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The Development of Language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Marantz, M. H. A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inection. In K. Hale & S.
J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 376). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word- Formation (2nd
edition). Mnchen.
McLagan, H. (2003). The Syntax of Genitive Constructions in Old English: Placement of genitive
phrases in AElfrics second series of Catholic Homilies. MA thesis, School of Language Studies,
Australian National University.
Meyer, R. (1993). Compound Comprehension in Isolation and Context. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
Paul, H. ([1880]1995). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/10/2006; 14:58 F: LA9710.tex / p.30 (1881-1988)
i8 Carola Trips
Pavlov, V. (1983). Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache im Bereich der
Wortbildung (14701730). Von der Wortgruppe zur substantivischen Zusammensetzung. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: CUP.
Sauer, H. (1992). Nominalkomposita im Frhmittelenglischen. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
Schultink, H. (1961). Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren (2), 110
125.
Springeth, M., Schmidt, K., & Ptz, H. (Eds.). (2002). Mittelhochdeutsche Begriffsdatenbank
(MHDBDB). Salzburg: Universitt Salzburg/ Paris: Lodron.
Sproat, R. (1993). Morphological non-separation revisited: A review of Liebers Deconstructing
Morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp. 235258).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S., & Beths, F. (Eds.). (2003). The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed
Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Toronto: University of York.
Trips, C. (2006). Lexical Semantics and diachronic morphology: The development of the deriva-
tional sufxes -hood, -dom and -ship in the history of English. Ms, University of Stuttgart.
Tschentscher, C. (1958). Geschichte der germanischen Bildungssilbe TUM. PhD dissertation,
Universitt Stuttgart.
Wiesner, J. (1968). Das Wort heit im Umkreis althochdeutscher personabersetzungen. Ein
Beitrag zur Lehngut-Theorie. Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 90,
367.
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions lexically related and head of a word. Linguistic Inquiry,
12, 245274.
Williams, E. (1989a). The anaphoric nature of 0-roles. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(3), 425456.
Williams, E. (1989b). Maximal projections in words and phrases. In M. R. Baltin & A. S. Kroch
(Eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure (pp. 280293). Chicago IL:The University
of Chicago Press.
Yerkes, D. (1982). Syntax and Style in Old English: A comparison of the two versions of Waer-
ferths translation of Gregorys Dialogues. Binghampton NY: Center for Medieval and Early
Renaissance Studies.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:26/10/2006; 9:27 F: LA97IND.tex / p.1 (47-144)
Index
A
accusative case I,,8, o,,
,, o, I,o, I,8, ::I, ::,
Afrikaans I,, ,I, ,,, ,,, o,
8,,:, ,, ,,Ioo, IoIo,,
Io8, Io,, II:, :8,
Alemannic ,, ,o, o, I, ,,
:oI, :o:
Anglo-Saxon I,,
argument(s) II,, :8, ,,, ,8,
I, ,,, oo, o:, oo,, o,,
II,II8, Io,, :II, :I:, :I,,
:Io, :I8, ::o, :,I, :,:, :,I,
:,,, :,,, :,,, :8,, :8, :88,
,II, ,I, ,I,
auxiliary ,I, o8, :,I:,,, :,o,
:8,, :,:
see also auxiliary selection
auxiliary selection o8, :,,,
:,,, :o, :, :o, :,:,I,
:,,, :,,:oI
B
Bavarian :o:
be o8, ,, :,,:oI
Burzios Generalization I,
Io, :8,o
see also Sibling Correlation
C
canonical subject position
:,,
case see accusative case
see dative case
see nominative case
see predicative case
see structural case
compounds ,,, I:8, :,,,o,,
,o,, ,o,, ,Io, ,II, ,I,I,,
,I,,:I, ,:,,:o
concord I,I,, I,, I,,I,8,
Io, Io,, I,o, I,8
counterfactual ,, :,,, :,,,
:I:8, :,o:oI
D
Danish I,, Io, ,I, ,, , o,
,,o, o,, ,,, ,,, ,o, I:,
dative case I,, :,:8, ,,, o,
::I, :88
desyntacticisation ,o,, ,o,,
,o,, ,:o, ,:,, ,:o
development of sufxes :,,,
,o,
dialect(s) I,, Io, ,,, ,,, ,,, I:,,
I,I, I8, I8o, I,II,,, I,8,
:o:, ,:I
DP II,, II,I:,, I,,, I,, I,8,
I,, I,, I,, I,,I,8,
IoI,o, I,:I,8, ,I,, ,:
Dutch I,, ,I,, ,o, o, I, oo,
o8, 8,, ,:, ,,, Io8, Io,, I,,
I,, I8, I,, I,I, I,:, I,,,
Io, Io,, Io,, I,o, I,o,
I8II8o, I88I,, I,,, :o,,
:o8, :,o, :,I, :,,:,,, :,I,
:,,:,,, :,,:oI, :,:, :8,,
,I,
E
Early Modern English
(EModE, ENE) ,o, :,8,
:o, :I, ::o, :8:,o,
:,:, :,,:,,, :,,, :oo, :o,
:88, :,I:,,, ,o, ,:,
Early New High German ,Io
ellipsis :I:, ::I, ::,::o, :,:
English I,I,, I,, :, :,,
:,:,, ,I,, ,o, Io, ,,,
oo, ,:, I,Io, I,, I,I, I,,,
I,,, IoI, Io,Ioo, I,,, I8I,
I,o, I,, I,,I,8, :o, :o8,
:I,, :I8, ::I, ::,, ::8,
:,,:I, :,, :,, :,:oo,
:o,, :o, :oo, :o,, :o,, :,o,
:,:, :,o, :,,, :8o, :8:, :8,,
:8,, :88, :,I, :,,, :,,, ,oI,
,o,,o,, ,Io,II, ,I, ,I,,
,:o, ,:I, ,:,,:o
EPP feature ,:, :o,:,o
F
Faroese I,, :o, :,, :8, ,I, ,,,
:, ,,, ,o, I:o
feature checking IoIIo,, :o,
feature movement 8,, II:
feature(s) :::o, :,, ,8, I,
,, o, 8,, ,, IooIo,,
Io,, Io,II:, Io,, I8:,
I8,, I,,I,,, :o,,
:,I:,,, :o,, ,o,
see also EPP-feature
see also feature checking
see also feature movement
see also number
neutralisation
Frisian I, I,, ,I,, ,o, I, ,,
I8,, I,,I,
G
German I::, :o:8, ,o, ,:,
,,, ,,, o, I, ,, 8,, I,, I,,
I8, I,, I,:, I,,, I,,,
Io,Ioo, I,II,:, I,,, I,,,
I,,, I,, I,8, :oI:oo, :II,
:I,, :I,, ::o, :::::,,
::,::8, :,o, :,I, :,,:,,,
:,I, :,:, :,,:oI, :o,, :o8,
:,,, :8,, :,,, ,oI, ,o,,o,,
,o,, ,o8, ,Io, ,II, ,I,,I8,
,:o,:o
Gothic I,,
H
head-movement 8,, ,o, ,,
,8, Io:, Ioo, Io,, II:
o Index
headedness ,o8, ,Io, ,I,, ,:o
history of English I,,, :,,,
:,,, ,o,, ,:I, ,:
Holmbergs generalization ,,
,I,,, ,,, ,8, ,o, ,8, 8:,
88,
I
Icelandic I,::, :,,, ,,, ,,,
:o, ,,o, o,, ,,, ,,,,,
8:, IIo, I:o, I,, I,II,,, I,,,
I,,, I,, I,8, :,I:,:, :,,
inherent accusatives I,, I
intensional reading II,, I:,
L
Low-Saxon I,,
M
Mainland Scandinavian I,,,
I,8, :,,, :,I
mereology Io, IoI, Io,
Middle Dutch I8I, I8,I8o,
I88, I8,, :,,:,o, :,,, :oI
Middle English (ME) ,o,
:,,:,, :,, :8, :,o, :,:,
:,,, :,o, :,8, :oo, :o,, :o,
:o,:,,, :,o:8o, :8,, :8,,
,o,, ,o, ,oo, ,:I,:,
Middle High German (MHG)
:,,, ,o,
N
Nom/Acc alternation
see nominative/accusative
alternation
nominal phrase(s) II,I:o,
I:,I,, I,oI,8, ,Io, ,I,
number neutralisation
I8II,,
nominative/accusative
alternation I,I,, :, ,o,
,:, ,,, ,o, I, ,,
nominative case Io, I8, :,,,,
,,o
Norwegian I, I,, ,I, ,, ,
,, ,,, o,, ,,, ,,, ,o, 8o8:,
,:, IIo, II8, I::, I:, I:o,
I:,, I,o, I,,, :,,
null elements I,,
number agreement I,:, Io,
O
object shift ,I,,, ,,, ,,,
8o8, :8:, :88
Old English (OE) :8, ,:, ,o,
I,8, :,,:o, ::, :,, :o,,
:,o, :8o:8, :8o, :8,, :,I,
:,,, ,o,, ,o, ,o,, ,II,
,:o,:
Old High German (OHG,
OldHGerman) I,,, :,,,
,o,, ,o,, ,o,, ,Io, ,I,, ,:o
Old-Frisian I,,
Old-Kentish I,,, I,8
Old-Norse I,,
Old Swedish :,o
optionality o,, o, Io8, :II,
:o,, :o8, :8o, :8
see also true optionality
P
partial functions Io,I,o
passive I,I,, :I, :::,, ,,,
,o, ,o,:, ,,, ,o, :,:, :,8,
:,:, :,,, :,,
pied-piping ,o, ,I, IIoII:,
:o,, :o,:o,, :,,:,,, :8,,
:8,, :8,:,I, :,,
predicate Io, I,, ::, :o, ,,
,,,8, o, ,, , o,, o,,
,o, ,I, ,I, ,,, I,, I,o,
:I8::o, :,:, :,,, :,8
complex o,oo, ,, ,I,
,:, IIo, II:, :I8
nominal II8I:8,
I,oI,o, I,8, I,,IoI,
Io,, Io,Io,
accusative ,:, I
nominative ,I, ,:, ,,,
,,, o, I
predication o,,, ,o, II,,
I,,, :I8, :I,, :,:
predication theory ,I, ,,, ,,,
o,,, ,o
predicative case ,o,:, :, ,
see also predicate accusative
see also predicate
nominative
pronominal determiners
I,Io, I,, I,I, I,,, I,,,
I,o, I,8, Ioo, IoI, Io,Io,,
Io,, I,,, I,8
pronoun(s) I,, I, , ,, ,,,
8I, 8:, I,,, I,,, II,8,
I8I, I8:I,8, :o8, :::,
::, ::,, :,o, :,:, :,,
resumptive :oI:o,
:Io, ::,, ::8
pseudo-coordination ,,, III
R
reconstruction ,,, :oI, :o,,
:o8:,:
referential reading I,o, ,I
referentiality I,I, I,,, :,,,
,o8,I:, ,I,, ,I, ,Io, ,I,,
,:
relational case IoI8, :8, ,o,
,,I, :, ,
relativization :oI:o,,
:o,:I,, :Io, :I,, ::I, :::,
::,, ::,, ::8, :,o:,:
remnant-movement 8o, ,I,
,8Ioo
resultative oo, ,, :,::,,
:,o, :oo, :oI
resumption ::,, ::8, :,o
resumptive pronoun :oI:I:,
:I,, :I,, ::o, ::,, ::8
rise of genitive compounds
:,,, ,o,, ,I,,I,, ,:o, ,:I,
,:,:o
S
Scandinavian I, ,:, ,I, ,,, ,,,
,o, 8o, II,I,8, I,I
see also Mainland
Scandinavian
shape conservation ,I,,,
,,o,, o,, o8, ,:, ,,, ,o, ,,,
8,8,
Sibling Correlation I,, Io, I,,
:o:8, ,o, ,,
structural case I,I,, :, :,,
,,, I, o, ::,
see also relational case
Stylistic Fronting (Styl-F)
:o,, :o, :,o:,o, :,,, :8,
:,I, :,,
Swedish II,, I,, ,I, ,, o,
I, o, ,I,8, o,, o,, ,,,8,
8o8:, ,:, I:I, I:o, I:,, Ioo,
I,,, I,
Index :
T
true optionality :o,, :8,
U
Upper Franconian :o:
V
V2 ,I, ,,, 8o8,, 8,,I, ,,,
IooIo8, II:, I:o, I8,, I,,,
I,,, I,,I,,, :,8, :,,, :8,
:8,, :88
verb movement ,I,,, o,, o,
o8, ,:, ,o, ,,, 8,, 8, 8,, ,I,
,8, ,,, IIo
Verb Projection Raising (VPR)
:o, :,I, :8o, :8::8, :,,
Verb Raising (VR) Io8, :o,
:,I, :,,, :,o, :8I:8
verb-second see V2
W
West-Flemish ,,
word-order change :o, :o,,
:o,, :,o
Y
Yiddish I, I,, ,o, ,,, :, I,,,
I,, :oI
Z
Zurich German (ZG)
:oI:Io, :I:, :I,, :Io:I,,
::I, :::, ::o::8, :,o:,:
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today
A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers website, www.benjamins.com
101 KARIMI, Simin, Vida SAMIIAN and Wendy WILKINS (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic
derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. vi, 411 pp. + index. Expected December 2006
100 SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form.
Generalizations across languages. x, 557 pp. + index. Expected December 2006
99 MARTNEZ-GIL, Fernando and Sonia COLINA (eds.): Optimality-Teoretic Studies in Spanish
Phonology. vi, 548 pp. + index. Expected December 2006
98 PIRES, Acrisio: Te Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and innitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp.
97 HARTMANN, Jutta M. and Lszl MOLNRFI (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From
Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 331 pp.
96 LYNGFELT, Benjamin and Torgrim SOLSTAD (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other
voice phenomena. viii, 326 pp. + index. Expected December 2006
95 VOGELEER, Svetlana and Liliane TASMOWSKI (eds.): Non-deniteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp.
94 ARCHE, Mara J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp.
93 PROGOVAC, Ljiljana, Kate PAESANI, Eugenia CASIELLES and Ellen BARTON (eds.): Te Syntax of
Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp.
92 BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp.
91 BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp.
90 DALMI, Grte: Te Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp.
89 VELDE, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge,
Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp.
88 MOHR, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic
languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp.
87 JULIEN, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp.
86 COSTA, Joo and Maria Cristina FIGUEIREDO SILVA (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp.
85 MIKKELSEN, Line: Copular Clauses. Specication, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp.
84 PAFEL, Jrgen: Quantier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp.
83 SCHWEIKERT, Walter: Te Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005.
xii, 338 pp.
82 QUINN, Heidi: Te Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp.
81 FUSS, Eric: Te Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal
inection. 2005. xii, 336 pp.
80 BURKHARDT, Petra: Te SyntaxDiscourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005.
xii, 259 pp.
79 SCHMID, Tanja: Innitival Syntax. Innitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp.
78 DIKKEN, Marcel den and Christina M. TORTORA (eds.): Te Function of Function Words and
Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp.
77 ZTRK, Balkz: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp.
76 STAVROU, Melita and Arhonto TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra
Teophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp.
75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005.
xviii, 398 pp.
74 HEGGIE, Lorie and Francisco ORDEZ (eds.): Clitic and Ax Combinations. Teoretical perspectives.
2005. viii, 390 pp.
73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sheila Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verb-
initial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp.
72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp.
71 GELDEREN, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp.
70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Adverbials. Te interplay between
meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp.
69 KISS, Katalin . and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and
Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp.
68 BREUL, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and
intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp.
67 MIESKA TOMI, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp.
66 GROHMANN, Kleanthes K.: Prolic Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003.
xvi, 372 pp.
65 MANNINEN, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp.
64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleanthes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp.
63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp.
62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and MaryAnn WILLIE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in
Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp.
61 SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): Te Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted
structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp.
60 TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp.
59 DEH, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp.
58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition.
2003. vi, 309 pp.
57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003.
vi, 405 pp.
56 COENE, Martine and Yves DHULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: Te expression of possession in
noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp.
55 COENE, Martine and Yves DHULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: Te syntax and semantics of noun
phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp.
54 BAPTISTA, Marlyse: Te Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. Te Sotavento varieties. 2003.
xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom).
53 ZWART, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax.
Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 2627, 2000).
2002. xiv, 407 pp.
52 SIMON, Horst J. and Heike WIESE (eds.): Pronouns Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp.
51 GERLACH, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp.
50 STEINBACH, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German.
2002. xii, 340 pp.
49 ALEXIADOU, Artemis (ed.): Teoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp.
48 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Elena ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Sjef BARBIERS and Hans-Martin GRTNER
(eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp.
47 BARBIERS, Sjef, Frits BEUKEMA and Wim van der WURFF (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the
Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp.
46 PANAGIOTIDIS, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. Pronominality and licensing in syntax.
2002. x, 214 pp.
45 ABRAHAM, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002.
xviii, 336 pp.
44 TAYLAN, Eser Erguvanl (ed.): Te Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp.
43 FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp.
42 ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp.
41 ZELLER, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp.
40 HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hotze RULLMANN, Vctor SNCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton van der WOUDEN
(eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp.
39 GELDEREN, Elly van: A History of English Reexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000.
xiv, 279 pp.
38 MEINUNGER, Andr: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp.
37 LUTZ, Uli, Gereon MLLER and Arnim von STECHOW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp.
36 GERLACH, Birgit and Janet GRIJZENHOUT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001.
xii, 441 pp.
35 HRARSDTTIR, Torbjrg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp.
34 REULAND, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzios Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp.
33 PUSKS, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. Te syntax of -positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp.
32 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Paul LAW, Andr MEINUNGER and Chris WILDER (eds.): Te Syntax of
Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp.
31 SVENONIUS, Peter (ed.): Te Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp.
30 BEUKEMA, Frits and Marcel den DIKKEN (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000.
x, 324 pp.
29 MIYAMOTO, Tadao: Te Light Verb Construction in Japanese. Te role of the verbal noun. 2000.
xiv, 232 pp.
28 HERMANS, Ben and Marc van OOSTENDORP (eds.): Te Derivational Residue in Phonological
Optimality Teory. 2000. viii, 322 pp.
27 RIKA, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp.
26 ACKEMA, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp.
25 FELSER, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions.
1999. xiv, 278 pp.
24 REBUSCHI, Georges and Laurice TULLER (eds.): Te Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp.
23 GIANNAKIDOU, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp.
22 ALEXIADOU, Artemis and Chris WILDER (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the
Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp.
21 KLEIN, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp.
20 LAENZLINGER, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and
clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp.
19 JOSEFSSON, Gunlg: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp.
18 ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp.
17 BEERMANN, Dorothee A., David LEBLANC and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Rightward Movement.
1997. vi, 410 pp.
16 LIU, Feng-Hsi: Scope and Specicity. 1997. viii, 187 pp.
15 ROHRBACHER, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and pro-
drop. 1999. viii, 296 pp.
14 ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Elena, Henk van RIEMSDIJK and Frans ZWARTS (eds.): Materials on Lef
Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp.
13 ALEXIADOU, Artemis and T. Alan HALL (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological
Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp.
12 ABRAHAM, Werner, Samuel David EPSTEIN, Hskuldur THRINSSON and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART
(eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp.
11 LUTZ, Uli and Jrgen PAFEL (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp.
10 CINQUE, Guglielmo and Giuliana GIUSTI (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp.
9 GELDEREN, Elly van: Te Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp.
8 FANSELOW, Gisbert (ed.): Te Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp.
7 FARL, Tor A.: Te Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp.
6 BHATT, Christa, Elisabeth LBEL and Claudia Maria SCHMIDT (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure
Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp.
5 GREWENDORF, Gnther and Wolfgang STERNEFELD (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp.
4 ABRAHAM, Werner and Sjaak De MEIJ (eds.): Topic, Focus and Congurationality. Papers from the 6th
Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp.
3 ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen
Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgesprche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp.
2 EHLICH, Konrad and Jrgen REHBEIN: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreexion und Beispielanalyse.
1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills.
1 KLAPPENBACH, Ruth (19111977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus
den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beitrge von Helene Malige-
Klappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.

Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell 97)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell 97)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax

is on a right branch but does not violate TSC as long

combines with a noun, it results in a mass noun.

. So, hem is anaphoric to the features in C, but is

acts as a probe for agreement features, which typically is

der Rot gute wein]

level and 3) non-heads need not be maximal projections. All

If we have a look again at some of the diachronic data presented in Section 2, we

s without the modications Lieber proposed in her theory. His

has a special status, because it functions as maximal projection in

This structure can then be inserted as such at D-structure, under N, resulting in a

You might also like