Borgonovo Neeleman

Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 45(3/4): 199-224, 2000
Transparent Adjuncts
CLAUDIA BORGONOVO
Universite Laval
and
AD NEELEMAN
University College, London
1. INTRODUCTION
All theories of movement have as one of their central aims to explain the fact that
extraction is dependent on the argument-adjunct status of the category extracted
from. Since Barriers it is assumed that categories are islands for extraction
unless they are L-marked or selected (cf. Chomsky 1986, Rizzi 1990, Cinque
1990, and Manzini 1992). Hence, extraction out of adjuncts is ruled out. While
this is certainly true for temporal, purpose and cause adjuncts (the examples
typically used to show extraction patterns), there are unexpected exceptions when
predicative adjuncts1 are considered. In the contexts in (1) and (2), predicative
adjuncts are well-behaved: they do not allow extraction.
(1) a. John danced [dressed as Carmen Miranda].
b. *Whatj did John dance [dressed as y ?
c. John danced [imagining the Gobi Desert].
d. *Whatj did John dance [imagining t;]?
(2) a. Johnfinishedthe portrait [covered in blue paint],
b. *Whatj did Johnfinishthe portrait [covered in y ?
This article was presented at CONSOLE 1 (Utrecht University), HI Coloquio de
Gramatica Generativa in El Escorial, Rutgers University Colloquium Series, Brandeis
University Research Seminar and Utrecht University "Onderzoekers" Series in 1993-1994.
We would like to thank the audiences for valuable comments. We also thank Peter Ackema,
Piroska Csiiri, Jane Grimshaw, Ray Jackendoff, Joan Maling, Javier Ormazlbal, James
Pustejovsky, Tanya Reinhart, Ken Safir, Hubert Truckenbrodt, Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria,
and an anonymous reviewer for comments.
1
By predicative adjuncts we mean an XP with a 6-role to be discharged to a DP external
to it, the typical example being depictives. We exclude from this definition adjuncts that
are predicated of the Event position, typically temporal, manner, and location adjuncts.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. New York University, on 18 May 2017 at 18:26:13, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100017680
200 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
c. Johnfinishedthe portrait [hating the model],

d. *WhOj did Johnfinishthe portrait [hating tj]?
The examples in (1) and (2) contain predicative adjuncts with unergative and tran-
sitive verbs respectively and, as expected, wfc-movementout of them is impossible.
However, if we extend the paradigm to ergative, or unaccusative, constructions, a
surprising pattern emerges (as far as we know, these data and contrasts have not
been discussed in the literature):
(3) a. John arrived [whistling the Blue Danube].
b. Whatj did John arrive [whistling tj]?
c. John died [singing Waltzing Mathilda].
d. What; did John die [singing tj]?
e. John came back [addicted to chocolate].
f. What; did John come back [addicted to tj]?
In contrast to unergative and transitive constructions, ergative constructions allow
subextraction out of adjunct participials. That it is the ergativity of the matrix verb
that is crucial for extraction receives confirmation from the data in (4).
(4) a. The athlete ran [singing Carmen].
b. *What; did the athlete run [singing tj]?
c. The athlete ran home [singing Carmen].
d. Whatj did the athlete run home [singing tj]?
As is well known (cf. Hoekstra 1984, Levin and Rapoport 1988, and many
others), certain verbs of motion are unergative in isolation, but behave as ergatives
when accompanied by a directional adverbial. For instance, in Dutch these verbs
select HAVE in isolation, and its past participle cannot be used prenominally. When
a directional adverb is added, BE is selected, and the corresponding participle can
appear prenominally. The data in (3) and the contrast in (4) can be captured under
the generalization that ergatives, but not unergatives or transitives, allow extraction
from adjunct participles.
The data in (5) complete the transparent adjunct extraction patterns; they
show that reflexive verbs also license extraction.
(5) a. John hurt himself [trying tofixthe roof]
b. Whatj did John hurt himself [trying tofixtj]?
c. John hurt Bill [trying tofixthe roof)
d. *Whatj did John hurt Bill [trying tofixtj]?
The data in (3), (4), and (5) are theoretically interesting for two reasons.
First, as we said above, they present a problem for current theories of move-
ment: extraction out of adjuncts should not be sensitive to properties of the verb.
BORGONOVO and NEELEMAN 201
Second, such sentences are presumably not very salient in the learner's input,
due to their low frequency, which probably does not exceed that of parasitic gap
constructions. Nevertheless, native speakers have fairly robust judgements about
them. This means that the properties of transparent adjuncts must be explained by
independently established principles.
In this article we discuss the principles involved, as developped within the
Principles and Parameters approach. Generally, a category is an island unless
it holds a certain relation to a head. Chomsky (1986) refers to this relation as
L-marking. Given that the adjuncts in (3), (4c), and (5a) can be subextracted
from, the definition of L-marking becomes crucial. Taking the interconnectedness
of 0-theory and L-marking seriously, we propose that only categories that bind
a 9-role of the verb and are contained within V may count as L-marked. We
observe that only predicative adjuncts can be transparent. We show that, given a
standard theory of predication, predicative adjuncts do indeed bind a 8-role of the
verb. We also show that transparent adjuncts can appear inside V , and therefore
can be L-marked (section 2).
We show that if adjuncts are interpreted as being L-marked, a representation
obtains that has the defining characteristics of reflexivity. According to Rein-
hart and Reuland (1993), reflexive constructions have to be licensed by reflexive
marking. Therefore, in order ot interpret adjuncts as L-marked, reflexive marking
must be present; it is then predicted that only reflexive predicates allow extrac-
tion out of adjuncts. Given an analysis of ergatives as inherent reflexives (as in
Chierchia 1989), it now follows that ergative, but not transitive or unergative verbs
take transparent adjuncts; this accounts for the data in (3) and (4c-d). It also
follows that "traditional" reflexive verbs have the same property, which accounts
for (5a-b). In section 3 we discuss extraction out adjuncts with reflexive verbs; the
extraction patterns that are observed force us to refine extraction conditions: they
apply to a subtype of reflexives, the inherent reflexives of traditional grammar.
This further requirement, we show, follows from well-formedness conditions on
reflexive chains.
2. O N L-MARKING
In this section, we explore the relation of L-marking. We claim that L-marking

consists of a thematic and a structural component; in so doing, we make explicit
what underlies the notion as used in the literature (section 2.1). This definition, as
will be seen, explains why predicative adjuncts can be transparent (section 2.2).
2.1. The definition of L-Marking

The relation responsible for making a category transparent (i.e., selection in Rizzi
1990 and Cinque 1990, L-marking in Chomsky 1986, etc.) is defined conjunc-
tively. 9-theory enters into it, because L-marking subsumes 9-marking. However,
202 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
not all 9-marking counts as L-marking: a structural condition is generally imposed

in order to exclude subjects from being L-marked. Many subjects are 9-marked,
but none of them allows extraction. Objects, on the other hand, always do:
(6) a. [Pictures of Dracula] frighten the dean.
b. *WhOj do [pictures of tj] frighten the dean?
c. The dean fears [pictures of Dracula].
d. Who; does the dean fear [pictures of tj]?
Since objects are within the V'-level (the level definitional for direct 9-marking)
but subjects are outside, L-marking has to be restricted to the first projection of
the verb. Let us therefore adopt the following definition of L-marking:
(7) L-Marking (first version):
A head a L-marks a maximal projection f3 iff
(i) a 9-marks /3, and
(ii) /3 is contained in a'.
We should point out here that throughout this article we will be adopting
n-ary branching, as in Williams (1989) and subsequent work. As an illustration of
the predictions concerning L-marking in an n-ary branching system, consider the
sentences in (8). In such a system, the transparency of both objects follows from
the fact that they are both sisters to the verb.
(8) a. Zoilo [gave [pictures of his aunt] [to the cobbler]].
b. Who, did Zoilo [give [pictures of tj] [to the cobbler]]?
c. Who, did Zoilo give [pictures of his aunt] [to tj]?
For reasons that will become apparent below, we have to be more explicit
about the nature of thematic relations. We assume that a 9-role is assigned to a
DP if that DP binds it. This view of 9-marking captures the intuition that 9-roles
are variables, and that arguments restrict their reference in much the same way
that operators restrict the reference of the traces they bind (cf. Williams 1980
and subsequent work, and Higginbotham 1985). The crucial relation is illustrated
in (9), where DPj binds 9j.
(9) V
V G; DPj
The theory that arguments bind 9-roles leads to the following modification of the
definition of L-marking:
(10) L-Marking (final version):
A head a L-marks a maximal projection (3 iff
(i) f3 binds a 9-role of a, and
(ii) P is contained in a'.
The stage is now set for the discussion of L-marked, hence transparent, adjuncts.
2.2. L-Marked adjuncts

We noticed in the introduction that the type of matrix verbs is relevant in de-
termining extraction possibilities out of adjuncts. However, that is not the only
factor involved: we also noticed that the status of the adjuncts is crucial. Only
predicative adjuncts can be transparent. What the adjuncts in (3), (4c-d), (5),
and (11) have in common is that they are all predicates, and all transparent. The
opposite obtains in (12).
(11) a. John; died tj [thinking about his unpublished papers].
b. What: did John; die tj [thinking about tj]?
c. John came back [addicted to chocolate ice cream].
d. What: did John come back [addicted to tj]?
e. John left [satisfied with his marble collection].
f. What: did John leave [satisfied with tj]?
(12) a. John; died tj [after he kicked the neighbor's dog].
b. *Whatj did John; die t; [after he kicked tj]?
c. They unveiled the statue [with a undescipherable expression on their faces].
d. *Whatj did they unveil the statue [with tj]?
e. Johnj was photographed tj [during an orgy].
f. *Whatj was Johnj photographed t; [during tj]?
Since extraction is only possible out of L-marked categories, we have to
assume that the predicative status of these adjuncts allows them to be L-marked.
The intuition is that their predicative nature allows them to be integrated into the
9-marking structure of the sentence, and thus they can meet the definition of L-
marking, even though they are not thematic arguments of the verb. This intuition
can be instantiated technically by appealing to a standard theory of predication.
As we stated in the preceding section, 6-assignment is a binding relation
between an argument and a corresponding 0-role and it is this kind of binding
relation that enters into L-marking.
Predicates have a requirement imposed on them: they need a subject they can
be predicated of (Williams 1980; Rothstein 1983). The subject can have a purely
formal function, as is the case with expletive constructions, or it can be assigned
an external 9-role along the lines of Williams (1980 and subsequent work). This
latter instance of predication is the one that concerns us here, since the gerunds
and adjectives under discussion are thematic predicates.
Since predication in the cases at hand is a 6-assigning relation, it follows
by definition that it instantiates binding. The category bound here is in fact the
maximal projection of the predicative head, because the index of the external
G-role is transferred to this category (cf. Williams 1981). The initial structure of a
sentence such as John died thinking about his unpublished papers is represented as
204 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
in (13), where the DP in object position, John, binds XP, the secondary predicate,
under predication. We give evidence below for the low (under V ) attachment of
the gerundive predicate; we stipulate it in (13) given the transparency of the XP
in question.
(13) V
XRO;
The same DP is also the internal argument of the verb, and therefore binds its
internal 0-role, as in (14).
(14)
Given that DP; in (13) and (14) binds both the 9-role of the verb and the predicate
XP, transitivity of coindexation will obtain, resulting in the XP bearing the index
of the 0-role of the verb, as in (15).
(15) V
V 9; DP XPj 9j
The coindexation between the predicate and the verb's 8-role has direct conse-
quences for the status of the adjunct. Since that 0-role is both coindexed with
and c-commanded by the secondary predicate, a binding relation is established
by definition. This means that if the secondary predicate is contained in V , as
we have indicated in the structures above (see evidence below), it will count as
L-marked, because it satisfies the definition in (10).
Although we still have to show that transparent adjuncts are contained in V ,
it will already be clear that it is essential that the prospective L-marked adjunct be
a predicate. Were it not, no coindexation and hence no binding relation could be
established between it and a 0-role of the verb. Consequently, adjuncts like those
in (12) cannot be L-marked, regardless of their place of attachment, and extraction
out of them is ruled ungrammatical.2
What about the structural condition on L-marking, the one that requires con-
tainment in the V projection? The following evidence suggests that transparent
adjuncts are indeed in complement position, that is, under V :
transparent adjuncts allow argument but not adjunct extraction:

(i) *[How quietly]; did John arrive [singing Waltzing Mathilda tj?
Gerunds have a temporal Operator in [Spec, GerP] which rules out adjunct extraction.
For analysis and evidence, the reader is referred to Borgonovo (1994, 1997).
(16) a. John died peacefully whistling tangos.

b. *What]c did John die peacefully whistling t^?
(compare with: What did John die whistling?)
c. John came back on Tuesday bringing a new ostrich.
d. *What]j did John come back on Tuesday bringing t^?
(compare with: What did John come back bringing?)
e. John left without his mother drinking whisky.
f. *Whatk did John leave without his mother drinking tk?
(compare with: What did John leave drinking?)
Whenever a clear adjunct (such as the manner adjunct in (16a), the temporal
adjunct in (16b) or the comitative in (16e)) intervenes between the verb and the
predicative adjunct, extraction degrades. This evidence indicates that in order for
the adjunct to be transparent, that is, L-marked, it has to be lower in the tree than
adjuncts, thus suggesting that transparent adjuncts do indeed satisfy the structural
condition on L-marking.
A note on the position of depictives: the evidence shown so far indicates that
depictives of the type we are considering have double attachment possibilities.
They can be adjoined to VP, in the canonical position for depictives argued for in
Roberts (1988) and McNulty (1988); this is the case of the post-adjunct gerunds in
(16).3 The evidence also shows that transparent adjuncts can be generated lower,
as sisters to V. The next section will show that this possibility actually results in a
formally reflexive construction.
3. REFLEXIVITY
The defining property of reflexive structures is the coindexation between two ar-
guments within the domain of a single predicate. The following schemas illustrate
the point:
(17) a.
3
A reviewer points out that the "do so" test suggests that predicative adjuncts of the
kind studied here appear outside V':
(i) John died singing Mozart and Bill did so singing Wagner.
Given the double attachment possibilities that these adjuncts have, we expect this test to
give acceptable results: predicative adjuncts always have the option of attaching higher.
206 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
Configurations such as those in (17) can hold at different levels, and the defini-
tion of what can constitute an argument will change accordingly. An inherently
reflexive verb such as shave instantiates (17) in the lexicon. It has the following
argument structure, in which two of its 6-roles are coindexed:4
(18) (Agent; (Theme;))
A syntactic instantiation of (17) is provided by structures in which an anaphoric
relation holds between two (or more) A-positions projected from the same predi-
cate. A straightforward example appears below:
(19) [John; [likes himself;]].
Finally, there is the possibility that at a semantic level, in which predicate
logic is relevant, the definition can be met. An example of this is provided by the
contrast in (20). The semantic representation of the sentences in (20) contains a
reflexive clause, namely the right conjunct in (21). The reflexivity of this clause is
licensed in (20a), but not in (20b) (see Reinhart and Reuland 1993 for discussion
of this point).
(20) a. The queen invited both Max and herself to our party,
b. *The queen invited both Max and her to our party.
(21) The queen (Ax (x invited Max & x invited x)).
The assumption we are making about the definition of reflexivity being met
at different levels underlies other theories of reflexivity as well. The reflexivity of
shave in John shaves has to be presyntactic, because from a syntactic point of view
the verb is monadic. The reflexivity of like in (19), on the other hand, must be
syntactic, because like is not necessarily self-oriented (witness John likes Mary).
Given that the definition of reflexivity applies across levels, with a concomitant
difference in the interpretation of the notion "argument", there is no reason to
assume that syntactic reflexivity entails argument structure or semantic reflexivity.
Rather, syntactic reflexivity can be a purely formal property, because syntactic
arguments are defined formally. For example, non-thematic subjects are arguments
in this sense. One might therefore expect the existence of constructions that meet
the definition of reflexivity in the syntax without reflecting it in their semantics or
argument structure. We will now show that transparent adjuncts entail this kind
of reflexivity.
Consider, for example, John died whistling. As we argued above, there is one
variant of this construction in which the predicative adjunct binds a 0-role of the
verb and is contained in V (in the other variant the predicative adjunct is attached
higher, as discussed in the preceding section). Binding of a 0-role and containment
4
In theories such as Grimshaw's (1990), the level at which this coindexation obtains is
lexical conceptual structure, not argument structure. For the purposes of this article, this
distinction can be ignored.
in V are also the defining properties of internal syntactic arguments (arguments

in complement position), as argued above. Consequently, the predicative adjunct
in that variant, that is, in the under V variant, is formally indistinguishable from
an ordinary internal argument. We now arrive at a structure that is syntactically
reflexive, that is, it instantiates (17). The tree in (22) shows the initial V level of
an ergative verb, with an internal DP, such as in John died whistling, or a transitive
V with an anaphoric object, such as in John hurt himself trying to fix the roof.
(22) VP
V DP: XP:
I I
V Bj X 0;
If XPj binds 0j in (22), the structure contains two coindexed syntactic arguments,
DPj and XPj (as said, XP qualifies as a syntactic argument by virtue of binding the
verb's 9-role and being inside V , though it is not a semantic argument of the verb).
Consequently, the structure in (22) instantiates (17) and is therefore reflexive.
As we argued above, in order for the predicative adjunct to be L-marked (and
hence transparent), it has to bind a 0-role of the verb and be contained in V . This
means that a construction such as What did John die whistling? will always be
reflexive, since two arguments (one semantic, one formal) within the domain of
one predicate are coindexed. We will now argue that conditions on the licensing
of reflexivity determine felicitous extraction.
Reinhart and Reuland (1993) argue that binding theory is a theory about
predicates, and not about referential dependencies. The notion of reflexivity plays
a crucial role in defining their principles A and B:
(23) Principle A:
A reflexive-marked predicate is reflexive.
Principle B:
A reflexive predicate is reflexive-marked.
As we said above, transparent adjunct constructions are reflexive. Therefore,
reflexive marking has to be present by Reinhart and Reuland's principle B. Since
it is crucial to this article, let us spell out our line of reasoning here. If extraction
out of a predicative adjunct has taken place, we know this adjunct is L-marked.
If it is indeed L-marked, the resulting construction is reflexive, and by principle
B it requires reflexive marking. The presence of reflexive marking, then, is a
prerequisite for extraction out of adjuncts. This will be shown to derive the class
of verbs that allow transparent adjuncts.
According to Reinhart and Reuland, reflexive marking can be achieved in
two ways. Either the predicate is reflexive-marked by a SELF-anaphor, or it is
208 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
inherently reflexive (that is, reflexive-marked in the lexicon). Assuming for the
moment that these two ways of marking a predicate as reflexive are equivalent,
we predict that XP can be transparent if either the matrix verb is reflexive-marked
by a SELF-anaphor or if it is inherently reflexive. It can be argued that all the good
cases of subextraction presented so far exemplify these two options: an L-marked
adjunct as part of an inherently reflexive or a SELF-anaphor construction, whereas
all the ungrammatical cases lack reflexive marking of any kind.
3.1. Ergatives as reflexives

It has often been claimed in the literature that there is a relationship between
ergativity and reflexivity. The connection has been established by, among others,
Grimshaw (1982), Marantz (1984), Everaert (1986), and Chierchia (1989). We
propose, partially following Chierchia (1989), that ergative verbs are inherently
reflexive. The reader is referred to Chierchia's work for details and discussion;
we summarize the analysis here.
In Chierchia's theory, unaccusatives (ergatives) are viewed as reflexivizations
of causatives; these causative forms can be overt (as in the causative member
of causative-inchoative pairs) or covert (the causative form never surfaces and
remains an abstract predicate; these are the non-alternating ergatives such as die).
The causing factor in ergatives is not an action performed by the agent subject but
a property or state of it. In this view, the causing factor essential in any causative
can be of two types: in one type, the causing factor is an event brought about
by the causer argument. For example, in John sunk the ship a certain action of
the agent caused the event of ship-sinking. In the second type of causatives the
causing factor is understood statively. For instance, in the ship sunk a certain
state of the ship caused the event of ship-sinking. These predicates are reflexive
because a certain state of an entity x causes x to be the protagonist of an event (see
Chierchia 1989 for the technical implementation of this intuition).
In ergatives that are not a member of a causative/inchoative pair the causative
predicate never surfaces and remains an abstract predicate in the LCS of these
verbs. John died, then, is understood as expressing that a certain state John was
in brought about John's death.
Evidence for the claim that ergatives are reflexive is provided by languages
in which ergative verbs have an overt reflexive marker, such as Spanish. Most
ergative verbs in this language are reflexive marked by the clitic se:
(24) a. lr+ se f. caer + se
'leave + SE' 'fall + SE'
b. morir + se g. dormir + se
'die + SE' 'fall asleep + SE'
c. desmayar + se h. despertar + se
'faint + SE' 'wake up + SE'
d. equivocar + se i. asustar + se
'be mistaken + SE' 'become scared + SE'
In Chierchia's theory all ergatives have a reflexive operator lexically; sometimes

this operator is incorporated into the meaning of the verb without any morpho-
logical marker (as in English and some ergatives in Romance), and sometimes
it appears overtly as a reflexive clitic, that is, as part of the verb morphology,
as shown in (24). The otherwise surprising identity between the reflexive clitic
and the clitics in (24) is thus explained: the clitic in both cases marks the same
operation of reflexivization.
A second piece of evidence for the reflexive status of ergatives goes as follows:
since ergatives always contain a CAUSE predicate, it would not be surprising to
find them used causatively sometimes, and hence in a transitive environment. This
obtains in the following cases (the uses are marked, but attested):5
(25) a. Fu nella battaglia morto.
'He was died in the battle.' (Boccaccio, in // Nuovo Zingarelli.
Vocabulario della lingua italiana)
b. Giovanni ha ribellato una citta.
'G. rebelled a city.'
c. La policia alemana suicid6 a Andrea Baader y Ulrike Meinhoff en los 70.
'The German police "suicided" Baader and Meinhoff in the 70s.'
d. Chi ha suicidato il boss nella sua camera da letto?
'Who "suicided" il capo in his bedroom?'
e. Lo desaparecieron.
'They've disappeared him.'
Chierchia provides additional evidence for the claim that ergatives are reflex-
ives; for instance, the use of the anaphoric adjunct da se (which can only appear
bound by causer arguments and which is allowed with ergatives) and Chierchia's
own theory of auxiliary selection in Italian. It can be added to this the fact that re-
flexives and ergatives appear in the same binyan in Hebrew. The reader is referred
to Chierchia's work for further argumentation and evidence; we will assume his
theory in this article without further discussion.
We can now explain the patterns in (3) and (4) and other examples that contain
ergative matrix verbs. A sentence such as What did John die whistling t? is well
formed because the matrix verb is ergative, which as we now know entails inherent
reflexivity. The latter provides the matrix predicate with the reflexive marking that
is needed for the predicate to be licensed as a coindexed, internal argument of the
verb, with the result that extraction is grammatical:
5
We thank Federica Busa (p.c.) for the Italian examples.
210 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
(26) Whj... VP
[+REFL]
It now also becomes clear why the transitives and unergatives in (1) and (2) do
not allow transparent adjuncts. A sentence such as * Who did John write his third
novel thinking oft? is ungrammatical because the matrix verb is not reflexive and
therefore lacks reflexive marking of any kind. Consequently, the representation
in which the XP binds a 9-role of the verb and appears within the latter's V (the
necessary conditions for L-marking) is not licensed. So, either principle B is
violated, or there is no L-marking. Both situations lead to ungrammaticality:
(27) *Whj...
What about alternating ergatives? If their analysis, representation and be-

haviour are the same as those of other unaccusatives, they are predicted to allow
transparent adjuncts. The following data confirm the prediction, at least for some
speakers:6
(28) a. The pianola broke [playing Waltzing Mathilda].
b. What^ did the pianola break [playing tk]?
c. The ice melted [oozing oil].
d. Whatk did the ice melt [oozing tk]?
6
Some speakersfindthese examples less clear than the ones involving non-alternating
ergatives; an anonymous reviewer reports that he tends to prefer depictive gerunds that
can be interpreted agentively. We have nothing to say about this for the moment. As the
same reviewer points out, it has been claimed (Haegeman 1990 and others) that alternating
unaccusatives of the type shown in these examples are actually syntactically unergative,
i.e., generated with a DP in subject position. If this were true, it would explain why these
data are less acceptable, maybe on a par with other unergatives.
3.2. An alternative: NP movement

At this point, an alternative hypothesis could be entertained that exploits the
fact that ergative constructions involve NP-movement whereas unergatives and
transitives do not. If this were the correct tack to take, passives should be expected
to pattern with unaccusatives in their predicative adjunct L-marking capacity.
Since passives are not reflexive, the hypothesis put forward in this section makes
the opposite prediction, which the data confirm:
(29) a. Zoiloj was arrested tj [wearing a pink tutu].
b. *What: was Zoilo; arrested tj [wearing tj]?
c. [The dean]j was killed tj [eating artichokes].
d. *What: was the dean]j killed tj [eating tj]?
e. John; was robbed tj [walking in Salt Lake City].
f. *[What city]: was John; robbed tj [walking in tj]?
3.3. SELF-marked predicates

The present analysis as it stands accounts also for the data presented in (5):
traditional reflexive-marked predicates, that is, verbs marked with a SELF-anaphor,
should also allow subextraction out of predicative adjuncts. As anticipated in
(5), subextraction is grammatical in the presence of a SELF-anaphor (see the b)-
examples below), but ruled out in its absence (see the d)-examples).7
(30) a. John hurt himself [trying tofixthe roof].
b. What; did John hurt himself [trying tofixtj]?
c. John hurt Bill [trying tofixthe roof].
d. *Whatj did John hurt Bill [trying tofixt;]?
(31) a. John cut himself [carving the turkey].
b. Whatj did John cut himself [carving tj]?
c. John cut Bill [carving the turkey].
d. *Whatj did John cut Bill [carving tj]?
(32) a. John killed himself [driving a Ferrari].
b. *What; did John kill himself [driving tj]?
c. John killed Bill [driving a Ferrari].
d. *Whatj did John kill Bill [driving t;]?
(33) a. John drove himself crazy [talking about his sacking].
b. What; did John drive himself crazy [talking about tj]?
c. John drove Mary crazy [talking about his sacking].
7
Thanks to Ray Jackendoff (p.c.) for pointing out these sentences to us.
212 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
d. *Whatj did John drive Mary crazy [talking about tj]?

Despite the confirming evidence in (30)-(33), the paradigm turns out to be
more complicated than has been suggested so far. In fact, not all SELF-marked
predicates take transparent adjuncts. Subextraction in (34), for instance, leads to
ungrammaticality.
(34) a. John washed himself [whistling the national anthem].
b. *Whatj did John wash himself [whistling tj]?
c. John invited himself [hoping to drink free champagne].
d. *What did John invite himself [hoping to drink tj]?
Similarly, unergative inherent reflexives do not allow extraction out of pred-
icative adjuncts:
(35) a. John shaved [whistling the national anthem].
b. *Whatj did John shave [whistling tj]?
c. John showered [thinking of Godel's theorem].
d. *Whatj did John shower [thinking of tj]?
Clearly, the system needs some fine-tuning.
3.4. Inherent and non-inherent reflexives

The verbs in (35) are traditionally called inherent reflexives. Notice that they differ
minimally from unaccusatives such as die in that their only (syntactic) argument
is realized externally, whereas the single argument of unaccusatives is inside the
V at D-structure. Descriptively, only verbs that have D-structure objects take
transparent predicative adjuncts. This can be explained if only verbs that take an
object are capable of L-marking.
In Chomsky (1986), it is claimed that V is not projected if the verb does
not take a complement. This claim expresses the idea that the essential trait of
the V'-level is that it is a level of complementation. In light of the minimalist
program (see Chomsky 1992 and subsequent literature), this claim can now be
reinterpreted as a consequence of economy principles: the V is only projected if
an internal argument position exists.
Notice that according to this line unergatives, such as shave, are inserted in
the structure in (36).
(36) VP
NP V
I I
John shaves
Let us now look again at the definition of L-marking, repeated here as (37).
(37) L-Marking:
A head a L-marks a maximal projection fi iff
(i) 0 binds a 0-role of a
(ii) 13 is contained in a'.
If we consider the second clause in (37), it becomes apparent that verbs that do
not take an internal argument will not be able to L-mark, since L-marking requires
containment in a projection that by hypothesis does not exist in constructions
headed by an unergative. The ensuing representation is as follows:
(38) VP
VP XP
DP V
In (38), the gerund depictive (XP) is adjoined to VP, the unmarked position
for depictives. The V does not project a V , following the considerations discussed
in the preceding paragraph.
Note that the strict interpretation of the definition of L-marking is indepen-
dently justified. Given Chomsky's claim that unergatives do not project a V'-level,
in (38) the verb would L-mark the subject if L-marking were defined on the basis
of sisterhood (39). However, subjects of unergatives, like subjects of transitives,
are islands, witness (40).
(39) VP
DPj V 9j
(40) *Whati did [an author of tj] laugh?
In sum, it has been shown that the fact that inherent reflexives do not take
transparent adjuncts does not prove wrong the analysis based on reflexivity. The
constructions under discussion are excluded for independent reasons having to do
with the structural, rather than the thematic, component of L-marking.
We are still left with a problematic case: the subgroup of transitive reflexive
verbs exemplified in (34). These verbs are reflexive, hence should take transparent
adjuncts, and contrary to the previous type of exceptions, they are transitive. We
cannot appeal to their lack of L-marking capacity, since they take an object, and
hence project a V .
It turns out that these verbs share one characteristic: they all take the anaphor
zichzelf in Dutch whereas the grammatical cases of extraction involve verbs that
in Dutch take the anaphor zich. Let us first consider the reflexive system of Dutch,
and then show why the above mentioned distinction is relevant for English and
subextraction. Dutch has two anaphors. The first one, zichzelf 'SE + self, can
function as a SELF-marker, and thus license non-inherently reflexive constructions.
The second, zich 'SE', is not a SELF-marker, and can therefore only appear in
214 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
inherently reflexive constructions. To complete the picture zichzelf is marginal in

contexts where SELF-marking is superfluous, that is, in inherent reflexives. This
system is illustrated in (41): (41a) is a typical inherent reflexive, (41b) is a non-
inherent reflexive. For further discussion, we refer the reader to Reinhart and
Reuland (1993).
(41) a. Jan schaamt zich/?zichzelf/*zijn leraar.

'John is-ashamed-of SE/SE-self/his teacher.'
b. Jan haat *zich/zichzelf/zijn leraar.
'John hates SE/SE-self/his teacher.'
What is crucial to the present discussion is that the presence of zich signals
inherent reflexivity. Now compare the following data in English and Dutch:
(42) a. *What did John invite himself [hoping to drink tj]?

b. dat Jan *zich/zichzelf/Piet uitnodigde
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete invited'
c. *What did John fire himself [thinking of tj]?
d. dat Jan *zich/zichzelf/Piet ontsloeg
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete fired'
e. *Whatj did John listen to himself [lying on tj]?
f. dat Jan naar *zich/zichzelf/Piet luisterde
'that John to SE/SE-self/Pete listened'
g. Who; did John write himself a letter [trying to cheat tj]?
h. dat Jan *zich/zichzelf/Piet een brief schreef
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete a letter wrote'
(43) a. Whatj did John cut himself [carving tj]?

b. dat Jan zich/zichzelf/Piet (per ongeluk) sneed
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete (accidentally) cut'
c. Whatj did John hurt himself [trying to fix tj]?
d. dat Jan zich/zichzelf/Piet (per ongeluk) pijn deed
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete pain did'
e. What; did John burn himself [cooking tj]?
f. dat Jan zich/zichzelf/Piet (per ongeluk) brandde
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete (accidentally) burned'
g. What; did John hang himself [worrying about tj]?
h. dat Jan zich/zichzelf/Piet ophing
'that John SE/SE-self/Piet hang'
A surprising correlation emerges from comparing the English and the Dutch
data; this correlation is given in (44).8
(44) Ackema 's Generalization:
The transitive reflexive verbs that take transparent adjuncts in English take zich in
Dutch.
Zich, as seen above, only shows up in inherently reflexive constructions.
Given that the Dutch verbs in (43) allow both zich and zichzelf (and a referential
NP), we must conclude that they have an inherent reflexive variant (besides a
variant that allows a referential internal argument or a SELF-anaphor). Given
Ackema's generalization, let us claim that verbs that are inherently reflexive in
Dutch are inherently reflexive in English, modulo some peripheral cases. The
conclusion that emerges is that inherent reflexivity, rather than reflexivity as such,
is the sine qua non condition for extraction out of predicative adjuncts. The
examples of felicitous extraction involve verbs that have an inherent reflexive
marking, such as ergatives and the zich verbs. Putting aside unergatives (out for
structural reasons having to do with L-marking), the examples of ungrammatical
extraction involve verbs that are either not reflexive at all, or that are not inherently
reflexive.
There is some evidence that it is the inherently reflexive variant of cut or the
other verbs in (43) that shows up with transparent adjuncts. The presence of zich
with these verbs in Dutch requires a specific interpretation: that the subject be
non-agentive. This is highlighted in the following examples:
(45) a. dat Jan zich/?zichzelf per ongeluk snijdt
'that John SE/SE-self accidentally cuts'
b. dat Jan??zich/zichzelf met opzet snijdt
'that John SE/SE-self with purpose cuts'
Our English informants independently report that in the cases of transpar-
ent adjuncts the subject also has to receive a non-agentive interpretation. If
non-agentivity is a property of the inherently reflexive variant of cut, speaker's
intuitions corroborate the connection between inherent reflexivity and the possi-
bility of subextraction.9 Given the impossibility of an adjunct intervening between
the transparent adjunct and V, the intuition cannot be corroborated by an appro-
priate manner adverb that would reinforce the non-agentive interpretation of the
subject:10
8
We thank Peter Ackema (p.c.) for pointing out this correlation.
9
It has been noticed that inherent reflexives in general express actions that are "un-
marked" when directed towards oneself (Jan Koster, class lectures, and traditional grammar
sources). Since it is not "unmarked" to inflict physical damage on oneself on purpose, it is
to be expected that the inherently reflexive variant of the verbs in (43) is non-agentive.
I0
A reviewer points out that our prediction can be tested by placing the manner adverbial
before the VP. The following data (provided by the same reviewer) seems to confirm our
predictions, though a bit awkwardly:
216 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
(46) *Whatj did John cut himself by accident carving tj?

There is one potential counterexample to Ackema's generalization: verbs
such as wash and shave do not allow for transparent adjuncts, but they do have a
variant that takes zich in Dutch:
(47) a. *What; does John shave himself [thinking about tj]?
b. dat Jan zich/zichzelf/Piet scheert
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete shaves'
c. *Whatj does John wash himself [whistling tj]?
d. dat Jan zich/zichzelf/Piet wast
'that John SE/SE-self/Pete washes'
There is an explanation for these exceptions. Since the Dutch verbs on the
one hand take zich and on the other allow zichzelf or a referential object, it must
be assumed that they have two variants: an inherent reflexive and one that is not
necessarily reflexive but that can of course be SELF-marked. Now, the English
verbs also have these two variants. Wash and similar verbs can be used as inherent
reflexives, in which case they are unergative, or as normal transitive verbs, which
like other transitives allow a SELF-anaphor as their objects:
(48) a. John washed.
b. John washed Bill/himself.
c. John shaved.
d. John shaved Bill/himself.
Unless one would want to assume a third variant of wash, namely a transitive
inherent reflexive, the data in (47) now follow: what is used in the English
examples is the transitive variant of wash, which is not inherently reflexive, and
which therefore by Ackema's generalization does not allow subextraction.
Summarizing findings so far, it has been argued that verbs like invite are
not inherent reflexive, and therefore do not allow extraction out of predicative
adjuncts. Verbs like cut have a transitive inherently reflexive variant, and hence
they do allow subextraction. The same is true of ergative verbs like die, which are
inherently reflexive by hypothesis (see section 3.1). Verbs like wash, finally, are
either inherently reflexive unergatives, or normal transitive verbs. Consequently,
they do not allow transparent adjuncts in either variant, the unergatives because
they do not project the level mandatory for L-marking, the transitives because they
are not inherently reflexive. This leads to the following classification of the set of
verbs that take transparent adjuncts:
(i) What did John by accident cut himself carving?
(ii) What did John unintentionally cut himself carving?
(iii) *What did John intentionally cut himself carving?
(49) V
[+REFL]
[DP]
Why would inhererent reflexivity be the necessary condition for subextrac-

tion? Or more precisely, why does XP in (50) not allow subextraction?
(50) *Wh k ... VP
DP: DP-SELF: XP:
x ik
The answer lies in the fact that there are two reflexive relations in (50), one
involving DP and DP+SELF, and the other involving DP and XP. Let us assume the
following: both relations need reflexive marking, and one SELF-marked anaphor
cannot license two seprarate relations. Let us see how this intuition can be
implemented.
Suppose that reflexivity is a property of chains rather than of predicates. A
chain is reflexive if two of its links are arguments of the same predicate. This
definition denotes the same set of constructions we labelled reflexive before.
However, it attributes the reflexivity of a construction to a chain, rather than to the
predicate. We can now redefine principles A and B of the binding theory in terms
of chains rather than in terms of predicates:"
(51) Principle A:
A reflexive-marked chain is reflexive.
Principle B:
A reflexive chain is reflexive-marked.
Suppose, furthermore, that a chain is reflexive-marked if its foot is reflexive-

marked. This marking can be achieved in two ways. In the first one, the verb
marks the foot of the chain as reflexive. This can only be done by a verb that carries
the feature [+REFL], that is, by an inherently reflexive verb (this type of reflexive
marking is a subcase of a pervasive syntactic pattern, that of a verb assigning a
feature to a complement):
Notice that as a consequence of this proposal the existence of chains at the argument
structure and semantic levels has to be assumed. Since both levels allow for coindexation
and impose hierarchical relations (see Grimshaw 1990) this is not altogether surprising,
since chains are defined in terms of command and coindexation.
218 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
(52) VP
DPk V'
V DPk
[+REFL]
In the second instance, the foot of the chain carries its own reflexive marking,
that is, it is a SELF-anaphor. The claim that the SELF-marking has to be on the foot
of the chain is illustrated by the Dutch examples in (53). The contrast between
(53a) and (53b) shows that in a simple transitive construction the SELF-marker
must be on the object, not on the subject. The examples in (53c-d) show that in
double object constructions the direct object, and not the indirect object must be
SELF-marked.
(53) a. Jan haat zichzelf.
'John hat^f SE+SELF.'
b. *[Jan zelf] haat zich.
'John himself hates SE.'
c. Jan raadde zich zichzelf aan.
'John recommended SE SE+SELF PRT.'
d. *Jan raadde zichzelf zich aan.
'John recommended SE+SELF SE PRT.'
We would like to point out that this way of looking at reflexivity is in many
ways a notational variant of Reinhart and Reuland's proposal. It has one advantage:
the two types of reflexive marking are realized in a single place, the foot of the
reflexive chain.
We can now come back to the question of why Ackema's generalization
holds, or to put it differently, what makes the structure in (50) ungrammatical.
The offending pattern contains a non-inherently reflexive verb followed by a SELF-
marked anaphor and a coindexed predicate. Since this construction contains one
reflexive-marked element, in principle it can only be grammatical if a single chain
is formed (remember that only one chain can be formed if there is only one SELF-
marked element). Given the c-command relations in the structure in (50), there are
two ways in which the three coindexed elements can form a single chain: either
as in (54a) or as in (54b), since the reflexive marking does not appear on the foot
of the chain.
(54) a. {DPj DP+SELFj XPJ
b. {DP XP; DP+SELFj
The chain in (54b) is well formed from the point of view of reflexive marking:
the SELF-anaphor is the foot of the chain. However, it is ungrammatical because
it contains an ill-fomed link, namely *{DPj XPJ. XP, because it is a predicate,
does not have the right features to be the local antecedent of an anaphor; it is not
referential, to begin with. The ill-formedness of this link renders the single-chain
interpretation of (50) ungrammatical.
The only remaining option, then, is that (50) contains two chains: a predication
chain consisting of the subject and the predicative adjunct (55a) and an ordinary
binding chain consisting of the subject and the SELF-anaphor (55b).
(55) a. {DP;XP;}
b. {DP; DP+SELFj}
The second obviously agrees with the principles of binding theory as stated
in (51). The predication chain, however, does not, since its foot is not reflexive-
marked (it is not SELF-marked). In sum, no matter how the three coindexed
elements in (54) combine into chains, the construction is ruled out.
As it turns out, constructions containing a SELF-marked anaphor and no
inherent reflexive marking on the verb do not allow an interpretation of predicative
adjuncts as L-marked. Such an interpretation violates principle B of the binding
theory: a reflexive chain {DPj PredJ is formed that is not reflexive-marked.
The situation changes dramatically if the verb is inherently reflexive, that is,
capable of reflexive marking the foot of the chain. In this construction, the same
chains re-occur. However, the first chain, {DPj DP+SELFj}, is reflexive-marked
by the SELF-anaphor. The second chain, {NPj XP;}, is reflexive-marked by the
inherently reflexive predicate. Furthermore, the two feet of the two chains bear
the crucial marking. The construction is therefore grammatical, and subextraction
is ruled in:
(56) Wh k ...
4. CONCLUSION
The problem of transparent adjuncts is now solved. We have argued that in order
for a verb to take transparent adjuncts it must take an object (otherwise it is not
able to function as an L-marker at all) and it must be inherently reflexive-marked
(otherwise the L-marking of the transparent adjunct will result in a representation
that violates principle B). So, the following lexical representation, first introduced
in (49), is required:
(57) V
[+REFL]
[_DP]
220 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
This requirement correctly derives the class of verbs that take transparent ad-
juncts. We have argued that transitive verbs like invite are not inherently reflexive,
and therefore do not allow extraction out of predicative adjuncts. Transitive verbs
like cut have an inherently reflexive variant, and hence they do allow subextraction.
The same is true of unaccusative verbs like die, which are inherently reflexive by
hypothesis. Verbs like wash, finally, are either inherently reflexive unergatives, or
normal transitive verbs. Consequently, they do not allow transparent adjuncts in
either variant.
To conclude, the existence and properties of transparent adjuncts now follow
from principles seemingly unrelated to the phenomenon, namely the principles
governing predication and binding. The latter, as a result, receive extra confirma-
tion from this extension of their empirical coverage.
APPENDIX I. A PROBLEM: OBJECT DEPICTIVES
Our account makes a last prediction: object depictives with non-reflexive transitive
verbs should not allow transparent adjuncts, since the reflexive representation
needed for extraction cannot be licenced. This prediction is only partially true:
(58) a. The meat was served [oozing blood].
b. *Whatk was the meat served [oozing tk]?
c. The meat was served [wrapped in foil].
d. ?Whatk was the meat served [wrapped in tjj?
Speakers, though they consistently reject (58b), tend to accept (58d). We
have no explanantion for this at this moment, though maybe categorial differences
between Adjective Phrases and Gerund Phrases play a bigger part than suggested
here. We leave the issue open.
APPENDIX 2: REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE THEORY OF REFLEXIVITY
The analysis proposed in this article has repercussions for the theory of reflexivity:
it affects both the definition of reflexivity and the kind of object reflexivity is a
property of. In this appendix, we will briefly discuss both issues, starting with the
latter.
We have proposed that reflexivity is a property of chains, rather than of pred-
icates. In many respects, this approach represents a notational variant of Reinhart
and Reuland's proposal. Consider, for instance, the issue of logophoricity. The
basic intuition is that a SELF-anaphor can be used as a logophor if the position it
appears in is not regulated by binding theory. So, if the structure a SELF-anaphor
is in cannot be reflexive, principle A may be ignored. Some examples are given in
(59). In these examples the heads that take the SELF-anaphor as their complement
do not have a subject. Hence principle A cannot, and therefore does not have to,
be obeyed.
(59) a. There arefivetourists in the room apart from myself,

b. A picture of myself would be nice on that wall.
In Reinhart and Reuland's system, this intuition is implemented as follows.
A predicate is defined as a subject-taking category. Since the XPs that contain the
SELF-anaphors in (59) do not take subjects, they are not predicates under Reinhart
and Reuland's definition. Hence, principle A does not apply. (Apparently, SELF-
anaphors do not have to act as reflexive markers; the feature [+REFL] is ignored or
deleted in logophoric environments.)
In our system, there are several ways to capture the same intuition. We will
sketch one of them. The feature [+REFL] could necessitate licensing by a predicate
(say under proper government), where the definition of predicate is identical to
Reinhart and Reuland's. If [+REFL] is not licensed, it must be deleted, and principle
A does not apply. Hence, the sentences in (59) are ruled in.
It appears, then, that differences between a binding theory defined in terms
of reflexive predicates and one defined in terms of reflexive chains are for the
most part executional. However, our reformulation of Reinhart and Reuland's
system has some advantages. For a start, we have argued that reflexive marking
is uniform in that it affects the foot of a reflexive chain. This position either has
its own reflexive marking in the form of a SELF-anaphor, or it receives it from
the verb. Remember that in Reinhart and Reuland's system it is the SELF-anaphor
that reflexive-marks the verb. Conceptually, our approach to inherent reflexivity
is more desirable, since it instantiates a pattern prevalent in the grammar, that of
a head assigning a feature to its complement, instead of the other way around.
A reformulation in terms of chains also has empirical advantages. For exam-
ple, it can be observed that in ECM-constructions, a SELF-anaphorin the embedded
subject position forces a reflexive relation with the higher subject, but not within
the lower clause:
(60) dat Max [zichzelf Lucie tj] [hoorde critiseren;]
that Max SE+SELF Lucie heard criticize
'that Max heard himself criticize Lucie'
In Reinhart and Reuland's system, the grammaticality of this construction is
unexpected, since there appears to be a principle A violation. According to their
assumptions, zichzelf is an argument of both the higher and the lower verb. We
accept this Conclusion for the moment, and return to it later. It is now surprising
that reflexivity is required only for the higher, and not for the lower predicate,
since the SELF-anaphor should reflexive-mark both. Their explanation for this fact
hinges upon verb raising in the sense of Evers (1975): somehow, the removal of
the lower verb out of its clause, depicted in (60), makes it impossible for the SELF-
anaphor to reflexive-mark it. However, under standard assumptions the moved
verb leaves a trace behind, which can be reflexive-marked. Consequently, verb
raising should be irrelevant here.
222 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
In our system, a simpler explanation can be given. The SELF-anaphor in (60)

is governed by the higher verb. Hence, it cannot be interpreted as a logophor, but
must be the foot of a reflexive chain. Consequently, it has to be coindexed with the
matrix subject (assuming, as Reinhart and Reuland do, that this is a co-argument
of the ECM-subject), but not with any arguments in the lower clause.
We believe, then, that a reformulation of the binding principles in terms of
chains does not only provide us with an account for the distribution and properties
of transparent adjuncts, but also has some additional advantages.
Let us go back to the definition of reflexivity. We have proposed that a
chain is reflexive if two of its links are arguments of the same predicate, where
the notion "argument" is dependent on the level of representation at which the
definition applies. This means that there can be syntactic reflexive chains that
are not semantically reflexive, such as the predication chains in constructions
containing a transparent adjunct.
Reinhart and Reuland recognize that there is a distinction between syntactic
and semantic reflexivity. They assume that only the latter type needs reflexive
marking, as is apparent from their final formulation of principles A and B:
(61) Principle A:
A reflexive-marked syntactic predicate is reflexive.
Principle B:
A reflexive semantic predicate is reflexive-marked.
From a conceptual point of view, (61) is not very attractive. If reflexivity is a
property of both syntactic and semantic predicates, why should these distinctions
hold? Why is the formulation of the principles not uniform?
The analysis of transparent adjuncts presented in this article states that syn-
tactic reflexivity also requires reflexive marking, in conflict with principle B as
formulated in (61). This suggests that the principles of binding theory apply uni-
formly across levels. We will conclude by presenting an alternative explanation
for the phenomena that prompted the formulation of the principles in (61).
Notice that principles A and B are of a different nature. Roughly speaking,
principle A says that the feature [+REFL] must be realized, while principle B says
that if a certain representation occurs, it must be licensed. If we do not specify the
level at which the principles apply, principle A will be satisfied if at some level the
representation it occurs in is reflexive. Principle B is different in that a reflexive
representation occurring at any level has to be licensed.
The interpretation of principle A as a principle that can be satisfied at any
level is corroborated by the fact that a reflexive marker does trigger reflexivity at
all levels. For instance, the inherent reflexivity of shave is not reflected in the
syntax, but it is realized at the argument structure level and in the semantics.
The interpretation of principle B as a principle that holds for all reflexive
representations immediately explains why reflexivity at either argument structure,
the syntax or the semantics level requires reflexive marking.
At this point, there is one counterargument against the application of the

binding principles across levels. In Dutch, an ECM-subject bound by the higher
subject can be both zich and zichzelf:
(62) a. dat Jan [zichzelf de Marseillaise tj] [hoorde zingenj]
that John SE+SELF the Marseillaise heard sing
'that John heard himself sing the Marseillaise'
b. ?dat Jan [zich de Marseillaise tj] [hoorde zingenj]
that John SE the Marseillaise heard sing
'that John heard himself sing the Marseillaise'
If the two subjects are syntactic co-arguments, one would only expect zichzelf,
since in that case the chain containing them is reflexive, and must therefore be
reflexive-marked. Obviously, if Reinhart and Reuland are right in assuming that
only reflexive semantic predicates have to be reflexive-marked, the occurrence of
zich in (62b) is not unexpected: the two subjects are not semantic co-arguments.
Note that the premise that the ECM and the matrix subjects in (62) are nec-
essarily syntactic co-arguments is essential to this line of reasoning. We rather
suggest that they can, but do not have to, be interpreted as syntactic co-arguments.
If they are interpreted as co-arguments, zichzelf has to be inserted; if they are not,
zich appears.
This optional interpretation can probably reduced to clause union effects. In
Dutch ECM-construction, the embedded verb is raised to the matrix verb. As has
been noted as early as Evers (1975), this movement triggers clause union for some
syntactic and semantic phenomena, but not for others. It might well be the case
that the status of the ECM-subject can either reflect clause union or not. If it does,
the ECM-subject becomes a syntactic argument of the matrix verb, and hence
zichzelf appears. If it does not, this subject is neither a syntactic or a semantic
argument of the matrix verb, and zich has to be inserted.
REFERENCES
Borgonovo, Claudia. 1994. The parametric syntax of gerunds. Doctoral dissertation,

Brandeis University.
Borgonovo, Claudia. 1997. Parasitic gaps and participials. Revue de langues et linguistique
23:19-29.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences.
Ms., Cornell University.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. A minimalist program for syntactic theory. MIT Occasional
Papers in Linguistics 1. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Everaert, Martin. 1986. The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.
224 CJL/RCL 45(3/4), 2000
Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Doctoral disser-
tation, Utrecht University. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In
The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 87-148. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1989. Argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. The syntax of motional goan in West Flemish. In Linguistics in
the Netherlands, ed. Reineke Bok Bennema and Peter Coopmans, 81-90. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16:547-593.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Levin, Beth and Tova Rapoport. 1988. Lexical subordination. In Papers from the Twenty-
fourth Regional Meeting, 27'5-289. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.
Manzini, Maria. R. 1992. A theory of locality conditions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
McNulty, Elaine. 1988. Secondary predicates in Spanish and English. Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Connecticut.
Neeleman, Ad. 1993. Complex predicates: A comparative analysis of Dutch and English
verb-predicate constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian. 1988. Predicative APs. Linguistic Inquiry 19:703-710.
Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203-238.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review
1:81-114.
Williams, Edwin. 1989. The anaphoric nature of 9-roles. Linguistic Inquiry 20:425^-56.

Borgonovo Neeleman

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Borgonovo Neeleman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 45(3/4): 199-224, 2000

c. Johnfinishedthe portrait [hating the model],

In this section, we explore the relation of L-marking. We claim that L-marking

2.1. The definition of L-Marking

not all 9-marking counts as L-marking: a structural condition is generally imposed

2.2. L-Marked adjuncts

transparent adjuncts allow argument but not adjunct extraction:

(16) a. John died peacefully whistling tangos.

in V are also the defining properties of internal syntactic arguments (arguments

3.1. Ergatives as reflexives

In Chierchia's theory all ergatives have a reflexive operator lexically; sometimes

What about alternating ergatives? If their analysis, representation and be-

3.2. An alternative: NP movement

3.3. SELF-marked predicates

d. *Whatj did John drive Mary crazy [talking about tj]?

3.4. Inherent and non-inherent reflexives

inherently reflexive constructions. To complete the picture zichzelf is marginal in

(41) a. Jan schaamt zich/?zichzelf/*zijn leraar.

(42) a. *What did John invite himself [hoping to drink tj]?

(43) a. Whatj did John cut himself [carving tj]?

(46) *Whatj did John cut himself by accident carving tj?

Why would inhererent reflexivity be the necessary condition for subextrac-

(50) *Wh k ... VP

DP: DP-SELF: XP:

Suppose, furthermore, that a chain is reflexive-marked if its foot is reflexive-

APPENDIX I. A PROBLEM: OBJECT DEPICTIVES

APPENDIX 2: REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE THEORY OF REFLEXIVITY

(59) a. There arefivetourists in the room apart from myself,

In our system, a simpler explanation can be given. The SELF-anaphor in (60)

At this point, there is one counterargument against the application of the

Borgonovo, Claudia. 1994. The parametric syntax of gerunds. Doctoral dissertation,

You might also like