Contemporary research in Romance linguistics: papers from the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, El Paso Cd. Juárez, February 1992

CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN ROMANCE LINGUISTICS AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE Genera...

Author: Jon Amastae

81 downloads 1161 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E.F. KONRAD KOERNER (University of Ottawa) Series IV - CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY

Advisory Editorial Board Henning Andersen (Los Angeles); Raimo Anttila (Los Angeles) Thomas V. Gamkrelidze (Tbilisi); John E. Joseph (Hong Kong) Hans-Heinrich Lieb (Berlin); Ernst Pulgram (Ann Arbor, Mich.) E. Wyn Roberts (Vancouver, B.C.); Danny Steinberg (Tokyo)

Volume 123

Jon Amastae, Grant Goodall, Mario Montalbetti and Marianne Phinney (eds) Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics

CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN ROMANCE LINGUISTICS Papers from the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages E1 Paso/Cd. Juarez, February 1992

Edited by

JON AMASTAE GRANT GOODALL MARIO MONTALBETTI MARIANNE PHINNEY The University of Texas at El Paso

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

∞TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements 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 Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (22nd : 1992 : El Paso, Tex. and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico) Contemporary research in Romance linguistics : papers from the 22nd Linguistic Sympo sium on Romance Languages, El Paso/Cd. Juarez. February 1992 / edited by Jon Amastae ... [et al.]. p. cm. ~ (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory, ISSN 0304-0763 ; v. 123) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Romance languages—Congresses. I. Amastae, Jon. II. Series: Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory : v. 123. PC11.L53 1992 440-dc20 95-15320 ISBN 90 272 3626 7 (Eur.) / 1-55619-577-X (US) (alk. paper) CIP © Copyright 1995 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia, PA 19118 • USA

Table of Contents

PHONOLOGY

On the status of sequences of liquids in Romance Gorka Elordieta and Jon Franco Glide formation, prefixation, and the phonological word in French S. J. Hannahs Coda weight and vowel length in Quebec French Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil On deletion rules in Catalan Alfonso Morales The representation of French final consonants and related issues Bernard Tranel

1 13 25 37 53

LANGUAGE VARIATION AND CONTACT

On Old French genitive constructions Deborah Arteaga French presentational structures William J. Ashby The evolution of causative constructions in Spanish and Portuguese Mark Davies Is there an Indian Spanish? Yolanda Lastra From Lebrixa's Grammar to Cartesian language theory: A retrojective view Carlos Otero The historical development of Rumanian /i / Peter R. Petrucci Feature-checking and the syntax of language contact Edward J. Rubin and Almeida J. Toribio Dialectal variation in an argumentai/non-argumentai asymmetry in Spanish Margarita Suner and Carmen Lizardi

79 91 105 123 135 167 177 187

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS

Primitives, metaphor and grammar Denis Bouchard On certain differences between Haitian and French predicative constructions Michel A.F.DeGraff

205 237

Distinguishing copular and aspectual auxiliaries José Lema The VP-internal Subject hypothesis and Spanish sentence structure Errapel Mejias-Bikandi The word order of constructions with a Verb, a Subject, and a Direct Object in spoken Spanish Francisco Ocampo Verb incorporation and the HMC in XVIth-century Spanish Claudia Parodi Non-thematic datives in Spanish Mariana Pool Restricting relativized minimality: the case of Romance clitics Johan Rooryck On the nature of SPEC/IP and its relevance for scope asymmetries in Spanish and English Maria Uribe Extebarria The verbal component in Italian compounds Irene Vogel and Donna Jo Napoli

257 275 291 307 319 333 355 367

This is a collection of papers presented at the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages organized by the University of Texas at E1 Paso and the Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez on February of 1992. The conference was held 500 years after that "eventful year of 1492" which witnessed among other things two worlds coming into contact and conflict and the publishing of the first systematic study of any Romance language, Antonio de Lebrixa's Spanish grammar. Though the conference was not organized around the consequences, linguistic or otherwise, of this event, its presence lurked in the background (and sometimes in the foreground, as in Carlos Otero's paper) as a constant reminder of the historical nature not only of language but also of linguistics. And as if to further underline the special circumstances surrounding this version of LSRL, the conference was held both in the city of El Paso (Texas) and in Ciudad Juarez (México). We would like to thank The University of Texas at El Paso, the Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, the Cultural Attache of the Consulate General of Spain, and all the participants, who in one way or another contributed to the success of the conference.

THE EDITORS

ON THE STATUS OF SEQUENCES OF LIQUIDS IN ROMANCE* GORKA ELORDIETA & JON FRANCO University of Southern California 0. Introduction: Loss of r-codas in Vinzelles Occitan In the Occitan dialect of Vinzelles (Dauzat, 1897), the phenomenon of loss of /r/-codas before obstruent+liquid clusters took place as a historical phonological change from Old Occitan to present-day Occitan. Morin (1987) examines this phenomenon as the result of the interaction of syllabic spreading and constraints on syllable structure. In this way, the change from Middle Age /arbre/ to Modern /abrë/ "tree", according to Morin, can be explained as in (1): (1)

a. [ar] - [brë] b. [arb]-[re] c. [ab]-[ra]

Syllabification in Old Occitan Onset-to-Coda Spreading (& delinking) Constraint on Complex Codas

(la) exemplifies the syllabification for the word arbre according to what Morin assumes to be the basic syllable structure in Old Occitan. Eventually, the spreading of the obstruent in complex obstruent plus liquid onsets to the preceding coda was introduced in the language, as in (lb). At this time, there were no collocational restrictions on derived syllables; these came later on, and complex codas of derived syllables were banned from the language. Thus, the /r/ dropped yielding the form [ab]-[r3] as in (lc). Furthermore, Morin states that: Derived syllables need not conform to the basic syllabic structure. The essential motivation for spreading is the lack of an adequate syllabic structure without adhoc collocational restrictions between the syllables. [...] Ultimately, spreading could be viewed as a means of reducing the inherent crowdedness within some syllable onsets. (Morin 1987:212)

In addition to pointing out the shortcomings of this sort of analysis, the purpose of this paper is to relate the dropping of /r/ in Occitan to a general * We would like to thank for helpful comments on this paper to Maria Carreira, Alicja Gorecka, Alazne Landa, Mario Saltarelli, J.-R. Vergnaud, and Roger Woodard.

2

ELORDIETA & FRANCO

tendency to disrupt discontinous sequences of liquids in Romance, and ultimately account — with some theoretical innovations — for the data found in Old Spanish with respect to this phenomenon. 1. Criticism of Morin's analysis The first thing that draws one's attention in Morin's analysis is his Onsetto-Coda Spreading Rule illustrated in (lb). Contrary to this rule, universal principles tend to create complex onsets and not complex codas, as captured in Harris' (1983) Onset Maximization Principle (cf. also Hooper 1976, Kahn, 1976, among others). Therefore, assuming that derived syllables should adhere to Universal Grammar, Morin's spreading rule in (lb) is unmotivated since there are no principled reasons to reduce complexity in onsets in detriment of the simplicity of the coda. A second problem with the spreading rule is that it violates cross-syllabic constraints in the sonority scale (cf. Hooper 1976, Selkirk 1984). That is, the Pol in the coda will have a lower value than the /r/ of the following onset in the derivation suggested by Morin. Finally, the derivation postulated for the evolution from Old Occitan [ar]-[bre] to today's [a]-[bra] is far from being economical. Notice that, as (2) illustrates, a supplementary rule of resyllabification needs to apply to (lc) in order to obtain today's syllabic structure of Vinzelles Occitan: (2)

[ab]-[re] —> [a]-[bra]

"tree"

In any case, our main empirical objection to Morin's hypothesis is that it overlooks the fact that r-deletion occurs in the presence of another element of identical sonorant nature in the following onset, a well-known phenomenon across Romance. A purely structural solution to this phenomenon of r-deletion in codas does not only have to face theoretical problems, but cannot account for the fact that it is the /r/ in the coda in (lb) that gets deleted and not the /b/. Actually, there is nothing in Morin's analysis that would prevent the deletion of this obstruent, a possibility that would go against the facts in Occitan. 2. Long distance dissimilation and deletion of liquids in Romance Restrictions on the distribution of liquids seem to be typical of most Romance languages and not idiosyncratic to Vinzelles Occitan. As a matter of fact, it has been attested in traditional grammars that Latin already had a rule of liquid dissimilation which applied across morpheme boundaries. Thus, Steriade (1987:33) describes the rule as follows:

SEQUENCES OF LIQUIDS IN ROMANCE

3

The adjectival suffix /-alis/ (as in /nav-alis/ 'naval') becomes /-aris/ when preceded by a stem containing /1/ /sol-aris/ 'solar', /milit-aris/ 'military', /Lati-aris/ 'of Latium'. Dissimilation fails only when the stem /1/ is separated from the suffix by an intervening /r/: /flor-alis/ 'floral', /sepulchr-alis/ 'funeral', /litor-alis/ 'of the shore'. Needless to add, when the sequence of liquids inside the stem is reversed, with /r/ preceding stem /1/ as in /reticul-aris/ 'of the net', dissimilation does take place.

Although there is some variation, the phenomenon of dissimilation of sequences of liquids was inherited in a somehow different fashion by some Romance dialects in their evolution from early Middle Ages to Renaissance. Interestingly enough, one finds that in Southwestern Romance, for instance, discontinuous sequences of identical liquids, schematically represented in (3), had a very unstable status. This fact is illustrated by the examples in (4) and (5): (3) /αL... αL/ (4) Deletion a. proprio >propio "own" (Spanish and Colloquial Roman) > propi (Catalan) b.aratro > aradro > arada "plow" (Catalan) > arado (Spanish) >arat (Marsian) >aratu (Sicilian) c. confratria > cofradia "guild" (Spanish). (However, confratria in Catalan) d.prora >proa "bow" (Spanish) e.prorsa (oratio) > prosa "prose" (Spanish) (5)

Dissimilation a. taratrwn >talatrum > taladro "drill" (Spanish) > talatre (Catalan) b. rebur > robre > roble "oak" (Spanish) > rúvulu (Sicilian) (However, roure in Catalan) c. arborlarbre > árbol "tree" (Spanish) > albero (Italian) > arbre [arbe] (Northwestern Catalan) d. locale > lugar "place" (Spanish) e.alaundula >alond'la >alondra "lark" (Spanish)

4

ELORDIETA & FRANCO

The data in (4) and (5) basically show that some Southern Romance dialects extended a version of the cross-morphemic Latin lateral dissimilation rule to discontinuous sequences of simple identical liquids. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the dissimilation rule, unlike in Latin, does not apply across morpheme boundaries: (6)

a. par + ar "to stop" b. re + ir "to laugh"

c. cabr + ero "goatherd" d. pre + scripción "prescription"

3. An alternative analysis of the problem In this section, we are going to propose a solution to the dissimilation and deletion phenomena based on data from Old Spanish, since this Romance dialect exhibits the most uniform behavior of all Southern Romance languages with respect to the phenomenon under discussion. Moreover, this new analysis will allow us to provide an explanation for the specific data in Vinzelles Occitan more satisfactory than the one offered by Morin. One could naturally argue that the phenomena illustrated in (4)-(5) in Old Spanish are examples of violations of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), which is stated in (7) below: (7) Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP)(McCarthy 1979). : In a given autosegmental tier, identical segments are prohibited The relevant autosegmental tier would be located at the level of feature representations, where two adjacent specifications of the feature [αlateral] would trigger the OCP effects of deletion and dissimilation shown above. This analysis is very much in the line of any proposal within the framework of Underspecification Theory, such as Steriade's (1987) solution for the Latin problem above mentioned. Thus, the application of this type of analysis to our data would be as shown in (8):


5

However, an analysis in the flavor of Steriade (1987) based on OCP alone as classically understood would make the wrong predictions with respect to the words — also from Latin origin — shown in (9), since none of the liquids in these words, whose first documentation is between 13th and 15th centuries, is dissimilated or deleted in Old Spanish: (9)

a. b. c. d. e.

bárbaro (from Latin barbarus) "barbarian" tartera (from Latin offertoria) "bowl" margarita "pearl" (in Old Spanish) púrpura "purple" cálculo "calculus"

The question then is the following: what prevents these words from undergoing the phonological changes presented in (4)-(5)? Alternatively to an analysis in the fashion of Steriade, we propose that the processes of deletion and dissimilation are the result of a violation of the OCP which takes place not at the level of feature specification, but rather at a higher level of representation. Thus, we formalize this proposal in what we will call the Generalized OCP: (10) Generalized OCP: a. OCP constraints equally apply at a prosodic level, provided that the segment features are visible at that level. b. Liquid features become visible at the prosodic level. Our claim for Old Spanish is that the specific prosodie level at which OCP constraints hold for liquids is the licenser level.1 Along the lines of Goldsmith 1 Notice that the Generalized OCP as formulated in (10) does not rule out the possibility for other languages to be sensitive to Generalized OCP constraints at a higher prosodie level in addition to the licenser level, e.g. the word level. Evidence for this extension might be found in Basque (see Michelena 1976) or in Italian, e.g., armariu>armadio "closet" (Saltarelli, p.c.).

6

ELORDIETA & FRANCO

(1990), the syllable node and the coda are primary and secondary licensers respectively of point of articulation features. We suggest that no two liquids with the same features can be licensed by adjacent licensers. Hence, going back to the Occitan data, the structure given below in (11) for arbre is ruled out by the Generalized OCP:2 In order to eliminate the forbidden sequences, Vinzelles Occitan chooses a deletion rule that eliminates the coda. Since codas are secondary licensers, according to Goldsmith, /r/-deletion in codas follows straightforwardly from a tendency to delete elements in weak positions.

Furthermore, with respect to the Spanish data, it is crucial for our analysis to state that adherence to the Generalized OCP was more rigidly observed in the transition from late Latin to Spanish until the XVI century. The hypothesis behind this is that the prosodie level of representation for liquids is parametrized in different languages at different times. Therefore, one should expect to find apparent counterexamples of the Generalized OCP, as for instance cases of cultismos (learned words of Greek and Latin origin introduced in the language once the historical phonetic development from late Latin to Spanish had been completed, cf. (12)) and words borrowed from American Indian languages (cf.(13)): (12) a. local "place", "site" b. artrosis "arthrosis" (13) traro (from Araucano) "prey bird"

2

Even though we have kept the acronym OCP (Obligatory Contour Principle) as in McCarthy (1979) for the sake of exposition, we believe that this condition on wellformedness should be deemed as a universal tendency rather than as a principle, since principles, unlike the OCP, apply everywhere. Hence, dissimilation, deletion, and suppletion can be deemed as strategies that conspire to abide by the Generalized OCP.


7

4. Liquid restrictions at the licenser level A legitimate question to ask is why the liquids are the only segments subject to the Generalized OCP. To put it in a different way, why are the liquid features projected beyond the regular level of feature specification of other segments? It is not our intention here, to linger on sophisticated explanations on this issue, yet, for the time being, we claim that it is the specific sonority nature of liquids what makes their features percolate up to the licenser level. In this regard, it is arresting to note that the liquids r and / occupy the highest position among consonants in the sonority hierarchy, and also that liquids are the only nonnasal segments that can be syllabic. Furthermore, from the perspective of language acquisition, it is worth pointing out that liquids are the last segments to be acquired by the child (also their mispronounciation is the source of many mocking accents). Thus, these facts seem to suggest that we should make a differentiation between liquids and the rest of the consonants that goes beyond the standard feature oppositions. In the remaining of this paper, we are going to show that the Generalized OCP is not an ad hoc solution for the phenomenon of /r/-coda deletion in Occitan, but rather an explanatory account of a prohibition against having identical liquids on adjacent syllables in some Romance languages. 5. Dominance and adjacency effects In our analysis, the configuration of the licensers is going to determine crucially whether the Generalized OCP applies strongly or weakly. Thus, we assume that when two autosegmental licensers are in a dominance relation (such as that holding between a syllable node and its coda), or when two primary licensers are in an adjacency relation, the Generalized OCP will apply with its maximum strength. This is illustrated in (14) and (15), respectively.

8

ELORDIETA & FRANCO

Configurations such as (14) and (15) constitute typical violations of the Generalized OCP, which accounts for the inexistence in Spanish of native stems of these types. An example showing adjacency effects is the Latin word prora, as in (15); in (4), we give more instances of these effects on words such as proprio, aratro, cofratria, all of which involve the loss of their second rhotic in their transition to Old Spanish.3

Another context of application for the Generalized OCP would be that of /r/deletion in Vinzelles Occitan, repeated in (16). Nevertheless, due to the specific adjacency and dominance relations into which the licensers in (16) enter, we should expect this context to be more permissible than the previous ones for the occurrence of sequential liquids on surface. Even though the coda containing a liquid and the following syllable node containing another liquid could be viewed as adjacent licensers, we will not consider this to be a strict adjacency relation under sisterhood in the structural sense, but an indirect one. Notice that the coda is a secondary licenser dominated by a primary licenser, its own syllable node, so the prohibition against adjacency of identical liquid features at the licenser level, i.e., where the Generalized OCP applies, is somehow weakened by the heterogeneous nature of the licensers in (16):

5

Words such as progreso "progress" are quite common in Spanish. However, it is not illogical to analyze the particle pro- as a prefix in Old Spanish. Notice that this word coexists with ingreso "deposit" and regreso "return".


9

In this way, despite the fact that the liquid sequence in (16) is not a completely felicitous one, some words such as pertrecho 'supply' have survived the Generalized OCP in Old Spanish because of this hybrid adjacency relation. Nevertheless, it is also important to note that the dissimilated form peltrecho is found in colloquial Spanish (cf. Cuervo, 1939). 4 Notice, moreover, that a homogeneous adjacency relation at the level of secondary licensers, that is, [a coda..α coda], as shown in (17), constitutes a context in which no OCP violations have been found in Modern Spanish:

To clarify our use of the term adjacency, we would say that two primary or syllable licensers are adjacent to one another if they are in a sisterhood relation (see (15)), whereas two secondary licensers (i.e. codas) bear a direct adjacency relation to each other if they are in contiguous syllables, so they would be next 4

A word of caution should be said with respect to supplementary counterexamples that the reader may have in mind. Most exceptions to the Extended OCP can be accounted for in view of the existence of dissimilated co-occurring words at the Old Spanish period when the Extended OCP was strongly operative. Thus, even though words such as frustration "frustration" or peregrino "pilgrim" appear as possible counterexamples, on our behalf, the forms fustración or pelegrino were also attested in colloquial Spanish (cf. Cuervo, 1939). The reason why the non-dissimilated form survived might be due to the speaker's choice of the most prestigious variant, which falls out of the linguistic discipline.

10

ELORDIETA & FRANCO

to each other in terms of the visibility of the Extended OCP. Now, an indirect adjacency relation would be the one that holds between a primary licenser and a secondary licenser (or vice versa) through an intervening primary licenser that is governing the secondary licenser (see (16) and (18)). Finally, in (18), we show a more tolerant context as far as the application of the Generalized OCP is concerned, since a neutral primary licenser intervenes between the two licensers of the liquids at stake. This intervening licenser together with the fact that the offending liquids are in heterogenous licensers can actually save some Generalized OCP violations since the adjacency relation required for this principle to be operative in Old Spanish is not as strict as in the previous contexts. Therefore, the sequences of liquids exemplified in (18) are not as hard to find as those in (17); thus, we have primer "first" and prior "headmaster".

From a cross-linguistic perspective, it is worth mentioning that the phenomenon of disruption of discontinuous sequences of identical liquids, either by dissimilation or deletion, has also been observed in other nonRomance languages spoken in Europe. For instance, Michelena (1976) states that from the Proto-Basque form *(h)ark-(h)ar "each other", the following variants were derived in Modern Basque: alk(h)ar, algar, eîgar, eîkar, and arkai. Similarly, Proto- Basque * berarri > Modern Basque belarri, be(h)arri, and begerri "ear". Significantly, these data also fall under our analysis, which in a way advocates for its explanatory power. 6.

Conclusion In this paper, we have established a correlation between the phenomenon of /r/-deletion in Vinzelles Occitan and other phonological processes affecting linearly discontinuous sequences of identical liquids in some Romance dialects.


11

A unified account of both phenomena can be mediated if we assume that certain principles apply at a more abstract level than the level of feature representation, that is, the prosodic level; hence, the motivation for our positing the Generalized OCP. Finally, we have shown that the Generalized OCP, in interaction with the relations of adjacency and dominance that take place between licensers, makes the right predictions with respect to the word internal occurrence/non-occurrence of sequences of identical liquids in Spanish and Vinzelles Occitan. REFERENCES Corominas, Joan and José Antonio Pascual. 1980. Diccionario critico etimológico castellano e hispánico. Madrid: Gredos. Cuervo, Rufino José. 1939. Apuntaciones criticas. 7th ed. Bogotá, Colombia: El Gráfico. Dauzat, Albert. 1897. Phonétique historique du patois de Vinzelles. Paris: Alcan. Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Harris, James W. 1983. Spanish Syllable Structure and Stress: A Nonlinear Analysis. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 8. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based Generalizations in English Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, Mass. McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Menéndez Pidal, Rafael. 1985. Manual de gramâtica historica espanola. 14th ed., Madrid: Espasa-Calpé. Michelena, Luis. 1976. Fonética histórica vasca. Second edition, San Sebastian: Diputación de Guipúzcoa. Morin, Yves.-Charles. 1987. "On Explaining Cross-syllabic Constraints". In Proceedings of the Fifth International Phonology Meeting, ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressier, Hans C. Luschutzky, Oscar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison, 207-213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. "On the Major Class Features and Syllable". In Language Sound Structure, ed. by Mark Aronoff, and Richard Oehrle, 107136. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

12

ELORDIETA & FRANCO

Steriade, Donca. 1987. "Redundant Values". In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, ed. by Anna Bosch, Barbara Need, and Eric Schiller, 339-362. Chicago: CLS.

GLIDE FORMATION, PREFIXATION, AND THE PHONOLOGICAL WORD IN FRENCH* S.J. HANNAHS University of Durham 0.

Introduction The phonological word (PW) to be examined in this paper is the phonological word in the theory of prosodic phonology (see Selkirk 1980, Nespor & Vogel 1982, 1986). That is, that constituent of the prosodic hierarchy larger than the foot but smaller than the clitic group. First, I will outline prosodie phonology, then propose a definition of the PW in French. I show that that definition is supported both cross-linguistically and by evidence internal to French, i.e. by Glide Formation and prefixai nasalization. Finally, I show the advantages of analyzing these phenomena in terms of prosodie structure over other analyses in the literature, specifically over level ordering in Lexical Phonology. 1. Prosodie phonology In the theory of Prosodie Phonology, proposed by Selkirk (1980), and developed by Nespor & Vogel (1982, 1986), among others, prosodie constituents are seen as a hierarchically arranged set of phonological domains, as in (1) (from Vogel 1991a). Prosodie constituents define the domains of application of phonological rules, in the sense that rules apply within a constituent, at the edge of a constituent, or at the juncture between two constituents (of the same type). Thus, rules can be classified as domain span rules, domain limit rules and domain juncture rules, respectively. These are shown schematically in (2), where Di and Dj are prosodie constituents (from Vogel 1991a; cf. Selkirk, 1980:111-112).

My thanks to participants at LSRL XXII for their comments on this paper, and to Irene Vogel, Yves-Charles Morin, William Frawley and Brian McHugh for their critique of previous versions of this work. I alone am responsible for any remaining errors of fact or interpretation.

14

HANNAHS

(1) Phonological Utterance / . Intonational Phrase / . Phonological Phrase / . Clitic Group / . Phonological Word / . Foot / . Syllable (2) a. Domain Span A-->B/[...X_Y...]Di

b. Domain Limit A-->B/[...X_Y]Di A-->B/[X_Y...]Di c. Domain Juncture A - > B / [... [... X _ Y]Di [Z ...]Di ...]Dj A --> B / [... [... X]Di [Y _ Z ...]Di ...]Dj The various prosodic constituents are constructed on the basis of phonological, morphological and/or syntactic information. These constituents, however, are not necessarily isomorphic with any morphological or syntactic constituent. By way of illustration, consider Italian. 1.1. Italian. For Italian, Nespor & Vogel (1986:124-134; see also Vogel 1991b) argue on the basis of a number of rules that the phonological word (PW) consists of stem + suffix or prefix1 . Thus we find in (3) that the rule of 1 In fact, the Italian situation is slightly more complex than this. Nespor & Vogel (1986) and Vogel (1991) demonstrate that there is a subclass of consonant-final monosyllabic prefixes which form a PW together with the stem to which they are attached, cf. [dis - onesto - i]PW di[z]onesti "dishonest p1."

GLIDE FORMATION

15

Intervocalic S-Voicing 'applies between vowels only if they are in the same FW' (Vogel 1991b). (3) a. [presunto - oso - ità]pw = pre[z]untuo[z]ità "presumptuousness" b. [a]pw [sociale - mente]pw = a[s]ocialmente "asocially" c. [porta]pw [sale]pw = porta[s]ale "salt holder" In (3)a the /s/s in question are between two vowels within a PW, therefore they are voiced. In b and c, however, even though the /s/ is phonetically intervocalic, phonologically it is not in the same PW as both vowels and ISV fails to apply. While morphologically in (3) we have stems, a prefix, and suffixes, the relevant phonological consituent, the PW, is composed of either a prefix or a stem plus suffix(es). There is evidence in the literature for this configuration of the phonological word in other languages as well. For example, Nespor & Vogel (1986) and Vogel (1990) argue for this PW in Hungarian as the domain of vowel harmony. Kang (1991) argues for the same configuration of the PW in Korean on the basis of coda neutralization and resyllabification. 2. French phonological word Returning to French, we find a similar patterning of the phonological word. That is, certain phonological phenomena occur within a stem or stem 4- suffix but do not occur across a prefix and stem. Thus, defining the PW of French as in (4), we will see that Glide formation and préfixai nasalization find a ready explanation as rules referring to the domain of the PW. (4)

French phonological word a. stem plus any suffix(es) b. prefix

2.1. Glide Formation. Let us look first at Glide Formation (GF). GF (a.k.a. 'semivocalization') is a phonological process of French by which the high vowels /i, y, u/ typically become the corresponding glides [j, u, w] when followed by another vowel2 (see Gougenheim 1935; Fouché 1959; Dell 1980; 2 Gougenheim (1935:25-29) points out that there is both a derived [j], the prevocalic realization of/i/, and an underlying [j], found word finally, e.g., in paille [paj] "straw", rouille [ruj] "rust". I would argue that the other two surface glides of French also arise from two different sources, one underlying, the other derived: as both Gougenheim and Fouché (1959) observe, GF is blocked when the high vowel is preceded by a sequence of stop or labiodental fricative + liquid, cf. chouette [swet] "owl" vs. brouette [bruet] "wheelbarrow", and duel [dud]

16

HANNAHS

Johnson 1987). (5) shows the correspondence between vowel and glide (from Johnson 1987:893). (5) colonie "colony" [koloni]

colonial "colonial" [kolonjal]

attribut "attribute" [atriby]

attribuable "attributable" [atribuabl]

(je) joue "(I) play" [3u]

jouable "playable" [3wabl]

While GF applies word internally (in the cases in (5), between a stem and suffix), GF does not typically apply across words3, as in (6) (from Johnson 1987:893). (6) j' envie Alain "I envy Alain"

[zaïvialë] cf. *[3avjale]

(je) joue au (football) "I play football"

[3U0] cf. *[3wo]

(il a) dû attendre "he had to wait"

[dyatddr] cf. *[diiatddr]

There are, however, two environments in which GF does not occur word internally (see also Note 2). These are a) between stems and certain prefixes, e.g., anti-, semi-, and b) between members of a compound, as in (7)a and b, respectively. (7) a. b.

antialcoolique [dtialkolik] cf. *[dtjalkolik] "anti-alcohol" tissu-éponge [tisyep53] cf. *[tisuep53] "terry cloth"

"duel" vs. cruel [kryel] "cruel". However, there are words in which we find a glide preceded by a stop + liquid, e.g., trois [trwa] "three" (cf. troua [trua] "perforated") and truite [truit] "trout" (cf. truelle [treel] "trowel"). This is evidence that trois and truite contain an underlying glide, while troua and truelle do not. The discussion below is concerned only with derived glides. 3 An exception to this, noted by Gougenheim (1935:26, note 1), is the locative particle y (Jïf) which may become [j] in informal speech, e.g. il n'y en a pas "there isn't any".

17

GLIDE FORMATION

As Johnson (1987:893) notes, "[c]ertain prefixes behave as 'separate words' insofar as phonological processes do not operate across the boundaries which divide them from their stems". It is precisely this sort of information that can be captured by the prosodie hierarchy in Prosodic Phonology. Consideration of the prosodie hierarchy and its involvement in the application of phonological rules thus provides a coherent explanation for the application of GF and, more important, its blocking, not only at the phrasal level between words, but also in compounds and prefixed words. In terms of the Phonological Word, we find that GF applies within a phonological word, shown in (8)a, but that it is blocked between phonological words, i.e., when the high vowel is at the right edge of the left-hand PW and the following vowel is at the left edge of the right-hand PW, shown in (8)b-d. (8) Glide Formation occurs a.jou+able [zu-abl]pw Glide Formation is blocked b. (je) joue au [3u]pw [o]pw c. antialcoolique [ati]pw [alkolik]pw d. tissu-éponge [tisy]pw [epoz]pw

—> [zwabl]

—> [zuo] —> [atialkolik] —> [tisyep53]

In (8)a, the high vowel and following vowel are in the same PW and GF occurs. In b, c and d, however, the high vowel and following vowel are in different PWs and GF does not occur.4 Thus, the behavior of GF follows from consideration of the constituents of the prosodie hierarchy and the domains of rule application defined by them: GF is a domain span rule of French within the phonological word. 2.2. Préfixai nasalization. Another phenomenon that indicates the correctness of reference to the phonological word in French is prefixai nasalization. The question of vowel nasality in French is quite complex and rather controversial. On the one hand, there are scholars who suggest that the nasal vowels of French are all derived from sequences of V + N. These include Trager (1944), Schane (1968), Selkirk (1972), Dell (1980), and Bouchard (1983). Essentially, this view is that a tautosyllabic sequence of vowel + nasal stop becomes a nasal vowel and the nasal stop deletes. On the other hand, 4

At LSRL XXII Leo Wetzels suggested that stress on the high vowel of the left-hand PW is responsible for blocking GF, rather than the PW boundary alone. If this is so, it provides further support for the proposed PW, indicating that the PW functions as a domain for stress assignment.

18

HANNAHS

noting numerous exceptions to this, others have argued for underlying nasal vowels which, under the appropriate conditions, become sequences of V + N (see, e.g., Tranel 1981). Morin (1972) has provided compelling evidence from reduplication for admitting at least some underlying nasal vowels in French. For a more detailed discussion of these issues and positions, see Hannahs (1991). For the purposes of this paper, I am restricting myself to nasalization in prefixes. What I propose in the following is to allow underlying nasal vowels but, at the same time, to suggest that there is also a rule of nasalization. As we shall see, this will account for the differing behavior of prefixes with regard to nasalization. Among the prefixes I will be discussing is the negative prefix in-. It has been claimed in the literature, and I accept that claim, that there are two prefixes in-: productive in-, which cooccurs with the suffix -able as in imbattable "unbeatable", and the unproductive in- which assimilates to a following sonorant, as in illégal and immoral. In this paper I am concerned only with productive in-. For a detailed discussion of the phonetic, phonological, morphological and semantic differences between these two prefixes, see Hannahs (1991) and the references there. Looking first at the prefixes in- and en-, both exhibit a nasal vowel when attached to a consonant-initial stem: (9) increvable encercler

[ikrevabl] [aserkle]

"unpuncturable" "encircle"

If vowel nasality were derivable only from VN sequences, we would predict that in- and en- have quite similar underlying representations, e.g., (10) in /in/

en /en/

Thus, they should behave identically before vowel-initial stems as well. This, however, is not the case, cf. (11) inimitable enorgueillir

[inimitabl] [anorgœjir]

"inimitable" "to make proud"

I argue, therefore, that there are underlying nasal vowels in French, but that not all surface nasal vowels are underlying nasals. As we shall see, this allows us to account for differences in the nasalization exhibited by various prefixes, specifically in-, en-, and non-.

19

GLIDE FORMATION

Relying on the prosodic constituent of the PW, we can formulate a nasalization rule to capture the perfectly regular behavior of the prefix in-. In terms of prosodic phonology, this nasalization is a domain juncture rule at the juncture between PWs. (12) in —> e / [__]pw [ . . . ] P W The rule in (12) shows that in- becomes [i] before another PW. The forms in (13) exemplify the application of (12): (13) [in]pw[négociable]pw [in]pw[battable]pw

[inegosjabl] eebatabl]

"not negotiable" "unbeatable"

Rule (12) must apply after syllabification. Thus, if the /n/ becomes an onset through syllabification, as in the case of vowel-initial stems shown in (14), it is no longer available to spread nasality to the preceeding vowel. (14) [in]pw[analysable]pw

[inanalizabl]

"unanalyzable"

Thus, with reference to prosodie constituents, specifically the PW, along with a regular and predictable rule of nasalization, the behavior of the productive prefix in- is captured. 2.3. Other prefixes. As noted above, there are other prefixes involving nasalization. One such prefix is en-. As we have seen, en- behaves differently from in-. Specifically, even before vowel- initial stems the prefix vowel is nasal, as in (15). Even more interesting, however, along with the nasal prefix vowel there is also an intervening nasal stop5. (15) enherber enivrer enorgueillir

[anerbe] [dnivre]6 [dnorgœjir]

"cover with grass" "to inebriate" "to make proud"

5 All sources agree that enhardir [aardir] "to embolden" and enharnacher [drnase] "to harness" have no [n] between prefix and stem. Given that hardi and harnacher both begin with h-aspiré, it is reasonable to assume that en- is realized in its preconsonantal form [d], 6 Contrary to Robert (1978) and Warnant (1968), Martinet & Walter (1973) also indicate some variation with enivrant and its dervatives enivrement and s enivrer, with 11 speakers pronouncing them with an initial nasal vowel [dn...] and six pronouncing them with an oral vowel [en...]. It could be that for these last speakers enivrer is unanalyzed and en- is not behaving as a synchronic prefix.

20

HANNAHS

This suggests strongly that en- contains an underlying nasal vowel and a nasal stop. On the basis of this behavior, I propose that en- be represented with both a nasal vowel and a nasal stop: (16)/an/ Non-, on the other hand, parallels the behavior of in- in some varieties of French, as shown in (17) (17) a. with C-initial stems non-livraison [no livrez5] non-résistance [ncrezistds] non-combattant [nckcbatd] non-paiement [ncpemd]

"nondelivery" "nonresistance" "noncombattant" "nonpayment"

b. with V-initial stems non-agression [nonagresj5] "nonagression' non-engagement [nondga3md] "nonalignment" non-intervention [nonitervdsjc] "nonintervention" For these forms the underlying representation of the prefix is (18) /non/ and it is subject to the same sort of rule of nasalization seen in (12), generalized in (19) to a sequence of oral vowel plus nasal stop. (19)Vn-->v / [..._]pw [ . . . ]PW There are other varieties of French, however, in which the vowel of non- is nasal even before a vowel-initial stem. In those varieties the forms of (17)b surface as in (20). (20) non-agression non-engagement non-intervention

[ncagresjc] [n5dga3md] [coetsrvdsjo]

"nonagression" "nonalignment" "nonintervention"

While this is reminiscent of the behavior of en- in terms of a nasal vowel before a vowel-initial stem, it is strikingly different with respect to the intervening

GLIDE FORMATION

21

nasal stop. Note that in (20) no [n] surfaces between the prefix and stem7, unlike the cases of en- in (15) and non- in (17)b. This is due to the fact that the nasal vowel in non- for the speakers in (17) is derived, while that for the speakers in (20) is underlying. That is, for the speakers in (17) there is an underlying /n/ available to become an onset, while for the speakers in (20) there is not. Thus, for the speakers in (20) non- is represented as (21)/n5/ Returning to the difference between en- and the non- in (20), in the first case an [n] appears between nasal prefix vowel and stem; in the second case it does not. This indicates that at least for these speakers and at least between a prefix and stem the prefix-final /n/ must be underlying in / a / and absent in /no/ and cannot be simply an epenthetic transitional consonant. The revised rule in (19), coupled with the possibility of underlying nasal vowels, makes an interesting prediction: a prefix which exhibits a nasal vowel at all may or may not have a nasal vowel before a vowel-initial stem (depending on whether the nasal is derived or underlying), but it must have a nasal vowel before a consonant-initial stem. Thus, we should not find a sequence of VN+C in which the VN is part of a synchronic prefix. This seems to be correct and exceptional nasalization in prefixes appears to be asymmetrical. That is, we find nasalized prefixes before vowel-initial stems but we do not find oral vowel + nasal stop before consonant-initial stems (see Notes 5-7).

3. Advantages There are several theoretical advantages to be gained by referring to prosodicstructure. In the first place, this allows GF and pefixai nasalization to apply postlexically, a less marked type of rule application (see Halle & Mohanan 1985). While the phonological word is constructed in the lexicon, rules for which the PW is the domain of application may be withheld until later postlexical application. This is in contrast to other recent analyses of GF and prefixai nasalization in the literature. In discussing GF, Johnson (1987), working in a model of French Lexical Phonology incorporating three lexical levels, argues that GF must apply before prefixation and compounding, so that it is correctly blocked between prefixes and stems or between stems in a compound. Referring to the PW, however, 7

Martinet & Walter (1973) indicate some instances of [n] occurring between [no] and the following V-initial stem. Specifically, this was documented with two of their speakers for non-être [cnetr], one speaker for non-exécution [cnegzekysc], and one speaker for nonusage [n5nyaz].

22

HANNAHS

allows us to define the domain of application, and thus blocking, of GF independent of the morphological operations of prefixation and compounding. Thus morphology and phonology interact through the intermediary of prosodic structure, while maintaining their own relative autonomy. In discussing the prefix in- and assuming derived nasalization, there are several lexical phonology accounts in the literature relying on ordered lexical levels, including Bouchard (1983), Prunet (1986) and Johnson (1987). Of these accounts, Johnson situates nasalization at level 1, Prunet and Bouchard at level 2. However, if the standard generative view of derived nasal vowels is followed, a rule of nasalization in the lexicon would run afoul of Structure Preservation (see Kiparsky 1982, 1985 and Borowsky 1986): SP prohibits the introduction of nonunderlying segments in the lexicon. If nasal vowels are not underlying, then they cannot appear in the lexicon8. Admitting underlying nasal vowels and relying on a restricted rule of nasalization, however, avoids problems associated with lexical levels. As with GF, specific advantages accrue from referring to prosodic structure rather than to lexical levels.

4.

Conclusions

In this paper I have briefly outlined evidence supporting the definition of the French PW as consisting of a stem + suffix(es) or a prefix. This evidence comes both from phonological processes of French referring to the PW, i.e. Glide Formation and prefixai nasalization, and from crosslinguistic similarities to the PWs of Italian, Hungarian and Korean. I have also briefly discussed some of the advantages of this approach, including an autonomy of phonology and morphology unavailable in a level-ordered framework, and the possibility made available by reference to prosodie structure of delaying rule application until the postlexical level. REFERENCES Borowsky, Toni. 1986. Topics in the lexical phonology of English. University of Massachusetts, Ph.D. dissertation. Bouchard, Denis. 1983. "Nasal Vowels in French without Underlying Nasal Vowels and without a Rule of Nasalization" Cahiers linguistiques d Ottawa 11,29-57. 8 Even Borowsky's (1986) relaxation of SP to hold only of level one would block Johnson's (1987) introduction of nasal vowels at Level 1. Kiparsky's more restrictive model, holding of the entire lexicon, would also block nasalization at Prunet's and Bouchard's Level 2.

GLIDE FORMATION

23

Dell, François. 1980. Generative Phonology and French Phonology. (Tr. by Catherine Cullen). London: Cambridge University Press. Fouché, Pierre. 1959. Traité de prononciation française. Paris: Klincksieck. Gougenheim, Georges. 1935. Eléments de phonologie française. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Halle, Morris and K.P. Mohanan. 1985. "The Segmental Phonology of Moderrn English" Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57-116. Hannahs, SJ. 1991. Prosodce Structure and French Morphophonology. University of Delaware, Ph.D. dissertation. Johnson, Wyn. 1987. "Lexical Levels in French Phonology". Linguistics 25, 889-913. Kang, Ongmi. 1991. "Word-internal Prosodic Words in Korean". Paper presented at NELS 22, University of Delaware. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. "Lexical Morphology and Phonology". Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 3- 90. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. . 1985. "Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology". Phonology Yearbook 2, 85-138. Martinet, André and Henriette Walter. 1973. Dictionnaire de la prononciation française dans son usage réel. Paris: France Expansion. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1972. "The Phonology of Echo-words in French". Language 48, 97-108. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1982. "Prosodie Domains of External Sandhi Rules". The Structure of Phonological Representations, ed. by H. van der Hulst and N. Smith, Part. I, 225-255. Dordrecht: Foris. . 1986. Prosodie Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Prunet, François. 1986. Spreading and Locality Domains in Phonology. McGill University, Ph.D. dissertation. Schane, Sanford. 1968. French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1972. The Phrase Phonology of English and French.. New York: Garland. . 1980. "Prosodie Domains in Phonology: Sanskrit Revisited". Juncture, ed. by M. Aronoff and M.-L. Kean, 107-129. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri. Trager, George L. 1944. "The Verb Morphology of Spoken French". Language 20, 131-141. Tranel, Bernard. 1981. Concreteness in Generative Phonology: Evidence from French. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

24

HANNAHS

Vogel, Irene. 1990. "The Clitic Group in Prosodic Phonology". Grammar in Progress: Glow essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. by Joan Mascaró and Marina Nespor, 447-454. Dordrecht: Foris. . 1991a. "Prosodic Phonology: Second Language Acquisition Data as Evidence in Theoretical Phonology". Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories, ed. by T. Huebner and C.A. Ferguson, 47-65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. . 1991b. "Level Ordering in Italian Lexical Phonology?" Certamen Phonologicum II, ed. by P. M. Bertinetto, M. Kenstowicz and M. Loporcaro, 81-101. Torino: Sellier & Rosenberg. Warnant, Léon. 1968. Dictionnaire de la prononciation française. Gembloux: Duculot.

CODA WEIGHT AND VOWEL LENGTH IN QUEBEC FRENCH JEAN-PIERRE Y. MONTREUIL The University of Texas at Austin 0.

Introduction In recent years, moraic theory (MT) has invited us to review and reanalyze both the lexical distribution of length and the various rules of lengthening responsible for surface distributions (Hayes 1988, 1991, Hyman 1985, McCarthy & Prince forthcoming). MT formally connects length and weight. Furthermore, it is clear that, in terms of moraic contrasts, the challenge is in the coda: in most cases, onsets may not receive weight, while nuclei must. But codas may or may not1. One issue which surely deserves further exploring accordingly concerns the relationship between the weight of the coda and the length of the nucleus. Consider this contrast: Type-1 syllable is CµVC (= CVC with a non-moraic coda). Type-2 syllable is CµVµC (=CVC with a moraic coda). Which of the two types is most likely to surface with a long nucleus? Such a contrast occurs in Milanese and it has been argued (see Montreuil 1990b, 1991b) that long vowels surface in Type-1 syllables because of a (not so transparent) bimoraicity condition: at some intermediate level of representation, Milanese closed syllables must be heavy. While Type-2 syllables already satisfy the bimoraic template, Type-1 syllables must lengthen. 1 Some notational and terminological conventions: 1) I use the term coda very loosely here to refer simply to C's which follow the V and close the syllable. It is well understood that moraic phonology recognizes no syllable constituents; 2) I use C and V only for expository convenience; 3) I use m [segment] as a space-saver to indicate a moraic segment: for instance, m[r] is my abbreviation for

µ r 4) µµ[segment] means a long V or a geminate and word-final µ (i.e. not followed by a segment) indicates a delinked µ,, as in example (8), where the intermediate form sµotµ. indicates:

s

µ I o

µt

26

MONTREUTL

This paper examines the degree to which coda weight is responsible for the surface distribution of vowel length in closed syllables in Québec French (QF), and some forms of Conservative French (CF). I will argue that in QF, contrary to Milanese, the source of lengthening must reside in the spreading of moraic material which follows the nucleus. Indeed, after a quick review of the data, I propose a moraic treatment which ends up saying the following: the distribution of length in Quebec French, in its non-lexical aspects, is solely due to one simple operation: the removal of an association line. 1. The data For lack of space, I will limit my discussion mostly to stressed V ' s in closed syllables, which is where the most interesting contrasts emerge. I use as a starting point the forms given in (1-6), taken from Walker 1984 2 . (1.-6) The distribution of length la. belle [bel] [mal] malle bette [bet] 2a. *[ãkr] *[œbl] *[pet] *[ot] 3a. patte [pat] [Sct] sotte jeune [3œn] 4a. vite [vit] nul [nyl] vif [vif] [nap] nappe 5a. sourde [surd] [mark] Marc sorte [sort] purge [pyrz]

2

lb.

2b.

3b.

4b.

5b.

bêle mâle bête ancre humble peinte honte pâte saute jeûne prise juge tir rage sourd marc sort pur

[bε:l] [ma:l] [bε:t] [a:kr] [œ:bl] [pε:t] [ö:t] [part] [sort] [3ø:n] [pri:z] [Ʒy:3] [ti:r] [ra:3] [su:r] [ma:r] [co:r] [py:r]

QF as described by Walker is somewhat cleaned-up and presents a sort of normalised Standard Canadian French. For that reason, it best serves my purposes, but the reader is invited to peruse the bibliography contained in Walker (1984) to grasp the rich variety of phonologies in QF. Furthermore, the phonetic forms used here are intermediate representations, since I have omitted for clarity lower-level phenomena like High-V-Laxing, Assibilation, Front-V-Lowering, Diphthongization etc... which are not relevant to our concerns.

27

CODA WEIGHT AND VOWEL LENGTH

6a.

poste morve

[past] [mcrv]

6b.

pose mauve

[po:z] [mo:v]

With minor differences, these data also reflect the vowel length contrasts of some conservative variants of Standard French, for instance the one described in Fouché (1959). Contemporary Parisian French is uninteresting simply because it has discarded its weight distinctions (see Montreuil 1991a) and has lost almost all traces of phonemic length. In analyzing these data, I will claim at the outset that there are four sources of length in QF, here dubbed: Circumflex Lengthening (CFL), Nasal Compensatory Lengthening (NCL), Closed Syllable Lengthening (CSL), and Voiced Continuant Lengthening (VCL). Both CFL and NCL are deeply lexical (to the concrete phonologist, they are strictly historical), and I will focus here mostly on the last two, which I believe are unquestionably part of the synchronic grammar of QF. 2. Overview: the four sources of length 2.1. Circumflex Lengthening (CFL). The first source of length has been called 'lexical' and originated in local compensation from segment-deletion (reduction of unstressed V's in hiatus: [meyr] > [my:r], or coda-deletion, most often s-deletion). It is interesting to note, with respect to [mal] vs. [ma:l] (< Mid. Fr. [masle]) that /a/ lengthened prior to becoming velar. Quantity controlled quality (but see Morin & Desaulniers 1991). CFL is responsible for the contrasts in (1). 2.2. Nasal Compensatory Lengthening (NCL). Nasal vowels have often been treated together with oral tense vowels, but I will maintain here that this is incorrect3. We view nasal V's as deriving their length from the nasal C itself, i.e. as the compensatory effect of the process of nasal deletion, applying deep in the lexicon. NCL is responsible for the contrasts in (2). The fact that it does not occur in absolute final position (bon is short), but that it does occur before C, as in bonde, will follow directly from our analysis.

3

Treating nasals as a subset of tense vowels has resulted in circularity. Walker (1984:53), for instance, justifies as follows his specification [+tense] for nasal V's: 'The nasal V's are specified as [+tense], along with /e/, /ø/, /o/, /a/, because they are intrinsically long and pattern after the other tense vowels'. Yet, he formulates (1984:51) a rule of V-lengthening that derives length from tenseness.

28

MONTREUIL

2.3. Closed Syllable Lengthening (CSL). A linearformulation of CSL is given in (7). (compare to Walker 1984:51): (7) CSL: [V,-hi,+t] —> [+long] / _ C # All non-high tense V's are long in final closed syllables CSL is responsible for the contrasts in (3). Since any final C constitutes a proper environment for the rule, the origin of vowel length cannot lie in moralc contrasts in the coda. Yet it does not nessarily follow that long V's are underlying. There is an important distributional fact to consider: CSL originates in Schwa CL. It does so historically4, and there is good evidence that it also does so synchronically. It is no coincidence that all the examples given in (3) end in schwa. There are very few instances of long [-hi,+t] non-nasal V's occurring in words where a final schwa could not be posited, and the only words that come to mind (type: gaz [ga:z] "gas", with the same length value as gaze [ga:z] "gauze"') fall under the purview of VCL5. There are no instances where both these sources of length (schwa and [+vce, +cont]) must be discarded. However, this is not the case for nasals and to substantiate the fact that nasal V's should not be viewed as a subset of so-called 'intrinsically long V's', it is sufficient to note that words like cinq, donc surface with a long V even if their final vowel is pronounced, even though the source of that length cannot be found in Schwa-CL (as could be argued for, say, chante) or in VCL. Schwa-CL is described by Hayes as a 3-step process. — see saute in (8). Step 1: segmental deletion. Step 2: Onset-to-Coda resyllabification: Parasitic Delinking. Step 3: Re-anchoring of the stray mora on the preceding V.

4

It is clear that grammarians were perfectly aware of the compensatory nature of this lengthening process. Thurot (1883), for instance, contains many revealing quotations, for instance: (from Du Gardin: "la pénultième est longue., si la derniere est feminine.. La raison pourquoy ces penultiemes sont longues est, d'autant que la derniere n'ayant qu'un demy son, à fin de suppleer à ce demy son, la eénultieme en.prend dauuantage" (Thurot 1883:573), or again: (from Durand) "dans tous les mots qui finissent par un e feminin, la voix se pedommage sur la syllabe precedente.., il y a toujours un coup plus ou moins long" (Thurot 1883:737). 5 Though both words have long V's in most variants of CF, there are quality variations. Some speakers prefer [ga:z] for gaz and [ga:z] for gaze. In this article, both Schwa-CL and VCL only lengthen. In treatments which base quality on length (ex: Plénat 1991), a difference must be made between lexical length which triggers velarization ([ga:z]) and VCL, which does not ([ga:z]).

29


(8) Schwa Compensatory Lengthening: saute: Underlying form: /sµo.tµV/ Step 1: segmental deletion: /sµo.tµ/ Step 2: Onset-to-Coda resyllabification: Parasitic Delinking: /sjiotµ/ Step 3: Re-anchoring of the stray mora on the preceding V: /sµµot/ Surface: [so:t] 2.4. Voiced Continuant Lengthening (VCL). VCL is responsible for the distribution given in (4). A linear formulation of VCL is given in (9) (again compare with Walker 1984:51): (9) VCL V —> [+long] / _ [C, +cont, +vce] ## In final syllables, all V's are long preceding voiced continuants When short and long V's contrast before the same C's, as was the case with the words in (3), the most immediate analysis is to posit lexical/underlying contrasts in V-length. But in (4), all V's are equally affected by a well-defined subset of C's, suggesting that the source of the contrast is to be sought in the C's themselves; in moraic terms, this corresponds to a contrast in the weight of the coda, as shown in (10), where Ci is a non-moraic coda, and the syllable is light, whereas C2 is a moraic coda, and the syllable is heavy. Thus vif has a short V and tir a long V: (10) Coda weight vif I C V I I v i

contrasts responsible for VCL µ tir Cl I f

vs.

µ I V

C I t

I i

µ I C2 I r

VCL applies in tir and it is the simple result of µ-delinking above C2, which creates a new association line, i.e. the spreading of the second µ on the stressed vowel6 .

6 The converse hypothesis, mentioned in the introduction, in which, given : CVCi vs. CV:C2, it is C1 which is moraic and the lengthening in C2 is accounted for by a Bimoraicity Condition, cannot be ruled out. But for the time being, there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to motivate independently a Bimoraicity Condition for QF (or Standard Fr), although there are bimoraicity effects and certainly a bimoraicity upper limit.

30

MONTREUIL

Under the spreading hypothesis, then, only [+cont,+vce] segments are moraic in coda position; all other C's are moraless7. This is the fourth source of length. Length is not cumulative, and there is a bimoraic limit to the weight of any rime. In pâte, there are two potential sources of length: CFL and SchwaCL. In words like chanvre, singe, onze, there are three potential sources of length: VCL, Schwa-CL and NCL. But of course, the long nasal vowel is only given one phonetic unit of length and only associates to one extra mora. Two notes on the properties of VCL: 1) Since it is a late rule, it is not sensitive to the presence of final schwa; by the time it applies, the decision as to whether any schwa will surface or not has been made, with the result that both tir, nul and tire, nulle are no longer distinguishable. 2) The structural description of VCL should limit the coda consonants to only one. Indeed, VCL does not apply to words like infirme and absurde, even if both C's belong to the set of voiced continuants as in purge. Walker cites several examples of the type sourd [su:r] vs. sourde [surd], QF [sUrd]. Some examples are given in (5). This last point leads us directly to the following question: what is the exact formulation of the Weight-by-Position (WbyP) parameter?

3.

Extraprosodicity

In the face of a moraic contrast such as the one in (10), tir vs. vif, the most obvious option, which we will have to reject, is to allow the WbyP parameter to be set in such a way as to assign moras to voiced fricatives only. This I will refer to as the Parameterized Weight Hypothesis (PWH). Zce (1988), among others, adduces evidence to the effect that the exact domain of application of the WbyP will vary in a language-specific fashion, mostly along the settings of a sonority scale. For instance, in Japanese, it captures nasals + liquids, in Italian, sonorants + [s], in Old Spanish: coronal sonorants + fricatives (see also

7 Note that, of the set of voiced continuants, only [r] can occur in the left branch of a branching coda. We assign to turc the moraic structure: [tjiuurk]. We do not assume any kind of Shared Mora Convention which would convert Fig. a into Fig. b: a. b.

µµµµ

I I I / \ t y r k *==> t y r k While it might be argued that such a convention is required, so we can explain the lack of Vlengthening in turc [tyrk] by the familiar Linking Constraint (= no spreading from a doublylinked µ), we will offer a different account of short V's in uVuCC#.

31


Bullock 1990, Martinez-Gil 1992). Under the PWH, WbyP would be formulated as shown in (11)8: (11) Parameterized Weight Hypothesis (PWH) WbyP in QF: C [+cont, +vce] —> µC [+cont, +vce] I will choose a different approach and argue in favor of an extraprosodicity approach. Extraprosodicity as a word-edge phenomenon, with clearly defined peripherality characteristics, is well documented and substantiated. Here I propose that [+cont, +vce] segments be analyzed as normally syllabified, but all other consonants are extraprosodic word-finally.9 (12) Derivation of tir, chic, turc. Mora-assignment

tir tµiµr

VCL

tµµir

.. later ..

[ti:r]

tic tµik

turc tµyµrk

[tik]

[tyrk]

This is not to be confused with the notion of extrametricality as it has been used in several works on liaison and latent consonants in Standard French. Attempts to link the phonetic realization of final C's to their extrametrical character represent a different proposal altogether. As I use it here, extraprosodicity strictly means 'invisibility to moraic structure' and both latent C's and stable C's will be extraprosodic, if they are not [+vce, +cont]. For example, the stressed syllables of petit and sourd (with latent C's) share the same moraic structure as those of chic and turc (with stable C's) respectively. This approach has the advantage of allowing the WbyP parameter to operate in a systematic and exceptionless fashion. i.e. to assign a µ to all 'coda' C's in the prosodic unit. If the moraic structure of gaz, tir is that of a heavy syllable, it is not directly becausc of some weight property of their final C's. Rather, these words contain segments that have all been incorporated right from the start into the prosody. Only extraprosodic segments, as in vif chic, but, are not affected by WbyP.

8

The exact formulation of WbyP in QF obviously would depend on one's assumptions concerning underspecification. 9 This proposal runs along the lines of Harris's (1989) account of Spanish prosody and it is also close to the notion of appendix used by a variety of people (most explicitly in connection with QF by Kaye (1990); see also Charette, forthcoming); see also, but with considerable differences, Plénat (1988).

32

MONTREUIL

This is not a notational variant of the PWH. Viewing WbyP as blind and extraprosodicity as feature-based provides a more satisfying account of the fact that word-internal codas behave as moraic, even when they are not voiced fricatives10. The structure of pastel, we claim, is [pµaµstµel], as given in (13). (13) pastel: [pµaµstµel]: Extraprosodicity poste: [pµoµstµV]:µ,of /s/ can't spread: not linked to final segment It also makes some different empirical predictions. For instance, under PWH, in a word like CVCC[schwa], Schwa-CL could result in the spreading of µ-[schwa] onto the stressed V, provided that the internal coda be nonmoraic. This would be wrong, all such words have short stressed V s . With extraprosodicity, however, we predict the correct form: all word-internal codas are moraic, so blocking would be systematic. Let us now examine how the µ-spreading parameters can be defined: A. what spreads: µ associated to word-final segments B. target: only stressed V (or a subset thereof). In addition, C. surface constraint: final V's in open syllables are short. A. What spreads: µ associated to word-final segments This means, by VCL spreading of µ[r] in tir, and by Schwa-CL, spreading of µ[schwa] in saute11. It also means the absence of spreading of µ[r] in turc, since [r] is not final. Words like turc make it clear that not all final µ's spread, but only those µ's that are associated to word-final segments. In other words, for the purposes of µ-assignment, the final [k] in turc is ignored; but the late rule that spreads µ[r] is sensitive to the presence of [k], and blocked by it. Note also that extraprosodicity affects one C only. In clusters with no sonority distance between the two C's, as in abrupt, abject, only the final C is extraprosodic. The low level of application of VCL is also responsible for the spreading of µ[r] in sourd [su:r]. Even though sourd is underlyingly /sur ål, its final segment, which surfaces in derivational morphology {sourdement, sourdine, sourdingue, surdité..), is no longer present at the level at which VCL applies.

10

Furthermore, in all Romance languages, the unmarked setting for WbyP is ON. Yet, the fact is that the majority of word-final C's in French are not voiced fricatives. Our approach resolves that contradiction. 11 For optional pretonic lengthening in sauter with [o:] and spreading of µ[schwa] in sauterelle, see Montreuil (in preparation)

33


(14) Derivation of sourd, sourde: Initial syllabification Mora-Assignment Early morphology Schwa-deletion Schwa-CL (if n/a, µ-loss) Resyllabification VCL .. later ..

sourd surd sµuµrd sµuµr —-— .... sµµur [su:r]

sourde sur.dV sµuµr.dµV —sµuµr.dµ sµuµr.d sµuµrd [surd]

By the same reasoning, we can explain the long V in words like tire. If all moras spread at the same time, early in the derivation, [i] in tire could not get lengthened by VCL, since its [r] would still be a moraless onset (as opposed to tir), nor by Schwa-CL since [i] is not [-hi,+t]. This implies a restructuring and goes contrary to the notion of 'resyllabification without moraicization' discussed (in a historical context) by Montreuil (1991a, b). Rather, moraassignment applies in the middle of the derivation in tire. Compare the derivations for tire, vite and saute (where schwa is represented simply as V): (15) Derivations of tire, vite and saute:

Initial syllabification Mora-Assignment Schwa-deletion Schwa-CL (if n/a, µ-loss) Resyllabification Mora-assignment VCL Surface

tire ti.rV tµi.rµV tµi.rµ N/A tµi.r tµirtµiµr tµµiµr [ti:r]

vite vi.tV vµi.tµV vµi.tµ N/A vµi.t vµit —[vit]

saute so.tV SµO.TµV SµO.tµ Sµµ0.t Sµµo.t

——[so:t]

B. Target: only stressed V. In an unmarked situation, one expects to see late rules target more V's than early rules. Indeed, in this case, all stressed vowels are targeted by the late rule (VCL) and only a subset of stressed V's (i.e. [-hi,+t]) are targeted by the early rule (Schwa-CL), so spreading of ji[schwa] occurs in saute, but not in vite. This also rules out the possibility of having Schwa-CL spread a final mora onto the coda C of the preceding syllable: ex: sourde, peste do not become

34

MONTREUIL

/sµuµµrd/, /pµeµµst/. Even though the bimoraicity upper limit would ensure that these would not be realized with an extra degree of length, such derivations will not occur in the first place. The fact that only [-hi,+t] undergo Schwa-CL implies, rightly or wrongly, what has been stated in most descriptive works on Standard French, namely that contrary to the historical sequence, quantity is derived from quality, synchronically. C. Is there a low-level constraint saying that final V's are short in open syllables? No mention has been made yet of open syllables, but it would follow from our approach that there would be few cases of lengthening in final open syllables, since in all cases we have derived length from the material following the stressed vowel. The prediction is correct12. There are no cases of /CV/ generating [CV:]. In the case of nasals, there appears to be needed a separate constraint to explain that nasal V's are short word- and phrase-finally, as in bon. At first glance, this process of V-shortening in open syllables doesn't have much to do with the two rules of V-lengthening in closed syllables, but it is clear that in MT, all three processes are accomplished by the same mechanism: the delinking of the µ associated to a final segment (again, not of any final µ). If that µ is associated to a C, delinking results in V-lengthening (by spreading); if it is associated to a V (i.e. if it is the second µ of a long vowel), delinking results in V-shortening.

4.

Conclusion

I have proposed for QF and Conservative French an analysis whereby historical processes of final vowel-deletion have created synchronic extraprosodicity. WbyP itself is blind to vowel features, but because of extraprosodicity, it will not affect all vowels. The two synchronic processes of lengthening (Schwa-CL and VCL) are both caused by the spreading of a µ associated to a word-final segment. In addition, a low-level shortening rule is needed to shorten nasals in open syllables. Since this too is accomplished through line-disassociation, it must be concluded that one single process of µdelinking is responsible for all non-lexical aspects of length distribution.

12 There do exist on the surface long V's due to an earlier compensation (type [la:] from /las/, [do:] from /dos/ by CFL). These forms do not undergo a second delinking (=shortening).


35

REFERENCES Bullock, Barbara. 1990. "Mora-bearing Consonants in Coda Position and Related Quantity Effects". Certamen Phonologicum, 2. Torino: Rosenberg. Charette, Monik. (forthcoming). Conditions on Phonological Government. London: Cambridge University Press. Fouché, Pierre. 1959. Traité de prononciation française. Paris: Klincksieck. Harris, James W. 1989. "Narrowing the Stress Window in Spanish". MIT, ms. Hayes, Bruce. 1988. "Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology". Linguistic Inquiry 20, 2: 253-306. . 1991. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. UCLA, ms. Hyman, Larry. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. (Publications in the Language Sciences, 19). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. "Coda Licensing". Phonology 7: 301-330. Martinez-Gil, Fernando. 1992 "A Formal Theory of Geminate Simplification in Proto-Spanish", paper presented at LSRL 22, El Paso, Texas. McCarthy, John and Alan Prince, (forthcoming). Prosodic Morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Montreuil, Jean-Pierre. 1990a. "On Losing Weight". Paper read at the Linguistic Association of the Southwest. UT-E1 Paso. . 1990b. "Length in Milanese". New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. CILT-69: 32-48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. . 1991a. "The Diachronics of Coda-Weight in Western Romance". Paper read at the ICHL-9. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. . 1991b. "Effetti di località in Gallo-Italico". Saggi di Linguistica Italiana. SILFI-1: 281-289. Torino: Rosenberg. . (in preparation) "The Lexical Phonology of Length". UT-Austin, ms. Morin, Yves-Charles & Ginette Desaulniers. 1991. "La longueur vocalique dans la morphologie du pluriel dans le français de la fin du 16ème siècle d'après le témoignage de Lanoue". CILPR-13: 211-221. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Plénat, Marc. 1988. "On the Structure of the Rime in Standard French". Linguistics 25, 5: 867-887. Montreuil, Jean-Pierre. 1991. "L'oralisation des sigles, ou Observations sur le mot minimal français". Paris-X Nanterre, ms. Thurot, Charles. 1883. De la prononciation française. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Walker, Douglas C. 1984. The Pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: U of Ottawa Press.

36

MONTREUIL

Zee, D. 1988. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Stanford: Ph.D. Dissertation.

ON DELETION RULES IN CATALAN* ALFONSO MORALES University of Illinois 0.

Introduction The problem of the interaction between rules and constraints is currently under discussion. In recent work by many authors, we have witnessed the consistent elimination of ordered rules in favor of filters or constraints with considerable gains in simplicity and in explanatory power (cf. Clements and Keyser 1983; Prince 1984; Kiparsky 1985; Itô 1986; Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986; Mascaró 1989; Scobbie 1991; Myers 1991). Some of this work has already provided evidence that deletion and epenthesis are processes especially prone to be derived from general principles instead of language specific rules. After Itô (1986), epenthesis and deletion tend to be seen as a fixing mechanism for syllabification and not as the result of a rule introducing or deleting a segment. The different declarative approaches to phonology (Coleman 1991; Bird 1990; etc.), all agree in that deletion of structure or of phonological material has to be banned from the set of processes allowed in phonology. This approach is against the usage of any destructive process. From this point of view all we are able to do is to add new phonological material or structure to an unspecified unit but never delink, delete, or substitute. Along this line of thinking I present here a unitary analysis of deletion phenomena in Catalan using general constraints and filters instead of deletion rules. I depart from the assumption that universally the deletion of a segment is not a single phonological process but the output of different mechanisms. In Catalan, all cases of deletion can be derived from either the principle of Prosodic Licensing (Itô 1986) or the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), (cf. Leben 1973; Goldsmith 1976; McCarthy 1979, 1981, 1986; Mester 1988; Yip 1989). I am grateful to José Ignacio Hualde, Jennifer Cole and Curtis Blaylock for their valuable comments. Also special thanks to Holly Nibert for her help on both theoretical and stylistic points. Any errors are my own responsibility.

38

MORALES

Catalan has several phonological processes that have as a consequence the loss of an underlying segment: namely final /n/ and /r/ Deletion, Cluster Simplification, Merger of Continuants, and a number of postlexical cases of Coalescence. In this paper my concern will be limited to processes that take place in the lexical domain; namely, /n/-/r/-Deletion and Cluster Simplification. The structure of the paper is as follows: in the first section I discuss some general problems that arise from the usage of deletion rules and present the set of templates and filters needed to account for the data. The second section is devoted to the actual analysis of deletion phenomena in Catalan. Finally I conclude showing that with the new analysis we avoid an ordering paradox. 1. Theoretical assumptions 1.1 Problems with deletion rules. A traditional deletion rule is a stringrewriting formalism by which any segment in any context can be erased. The content of a deletion rule is X —> ø / Y. Deletion rules although widely used in the past face the following problems: • They give more power to the phonology than what we really seem to need. Across languages we find that segments that tend to be deleted are of a certain type and in specific positions. Normally we find them at the edges of phonological domains or in contact with similar segments. Using traditional deletion rules we are able to delete segments in those circumstances but we are also able to delete any segment as well. • Independent cases of deletion receive exactly the same kind of account. We may have cases of deletion due to identity coupled with constraints on syllabification. Using deletion rules we would conclude that in both cases we have the same phonological process, only in different contexts, when in fact what we have are two different phonological processes that happen to have the same result: the elimination of a segment. • They are a nightmare for Computational Linguistics. In speech recognition, or in any computational analysis that goes from speech to text the implementation of these rules is problematic because when we reverse the rule we have that ø —> X / Y and that means that X may be inserted whenever we find Y. • They are stipulative transformational rules with the power of destroying structure already built, something that goes against the "integrity" property (see Prince 1985; Steriade 1988; Poser 1989 for foot integrity, and Harris 1991 for syllable integrity).

DELETION RULES IN CATALAN

39

• They do not have any explanatory power. We do not gain a better understanding of the process by just writing an independent description of what we can observe. ♦ Finally, since we already need the independent constraints that can derive the same results, the existence of deletion rules becomes redundant. Independently, any one of these problems would make us consider the possibility of an alternative analysis. Together, they make an alternative analysis imperative. 1. 2. The interleafing of phonology with morphology. In regard to the relation between phonology and morphology, I assume the interaction represented in (1). Morphology concatenates roots and derivational suffixes and sends its output to phonology. There it goes through the Level 1 domain were a set of rules and constraints has an opportunity to apply. The output of this domain is piped to the Level 2 domain. At this level morphology and syntax can adjoin new elements that affect the whole word such as word markers, agreement morphemes, prefixes and clitics. (1)

Syntax Clitics Phonology level 2 < level 1
which complicates the issue of giving a binary opposition between uniclausal and biclausal causative structures. To simplify the discussion and to correlate our findings with previous studies, we will hold that uniclausal = VP complements, and biclausal = IP/CP complements.

108

DAVIES

The suggestion that Spanish and Portuguese are moving from uniclausal to biclausal constructions goes contrary to some past research (eg. Saltarelli 1980). Our study is unique, however, in that it is the only one to take into account data from OSp (Old Spanish) and OPt (Old Portuguese), which are crucial to understanding the diachrony of the four phenomena seen in (2)-(3). 1.2 Diachronic continuum of verbs The second major purpose of this study is to look at how the causatives changed from the situation in (2) to that in (3). With all verbs, the initial OSp/Pt situation is that seen in (2), even with the verbs of perception (such as ver 'to see' and oir/ouvir 'to hear') and the 'peripheral' causative verbs like dexar and obligar} As (4) below indicates, and as we will see in 2.2-5.2, it is with these peripheral verbs that we first see the shift towards the biclausal situation in (3). The move towards (3) slowly spreads through the causative verbs, finally reaching the core causatives fazer and mandar. In all cases, this shift occurs more quickly in Portuguese than in Spanish. As a result, the ModSp options in (3) are, depending on the dialect, sometimes still innovative and unacceptable with the core causative verb hacer. (4) General schema UNICLAUSAL » » FAZER MANDAR (LATE, DIFFICULT)

»

» » DEXAR

»

» » » » BICLAUSAL VER OBLIGAR OIR AYUDAR ETC. (EARLY, EASY)

PORTUGUESE ============ > SPANISH > We should note that most previous researchers have looked only, or mainly, at just fazer (or fair e/fare in French/Italian). Doing the same in Spanish and Portuguese would prevent us from seeing that the four shifts in (2) and (3) have slowly spread through the causative verbs until they finally reach the core 3

For the sake of consistency, we will ignore the differences between the OSp, OPt, ModSp, and ModPt forms of the causative verbs, and will use the OSp form: fazer 'to make', mandår 'to order', dexar to let', ver 'to see', c/r 'to hear', etc. We refer to fazer and mandar as the 'core' causative verbs, because they are the most frequent in the corpus. We refer to the socalled 'order' verbs (such as permidr 'to permit', obligar 'to obligate', ordenar 'to order') as 'peripheral' causative verbs. Dexar, a permissive verb, can be categorized as core/peripheral.

EVOLUTION OF CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

109

verbs, and that the shifts with fazer are not independent from a more general shift with Spanish and Portuguese causatives. 1.3 Let us now consider the shift from (2) to (3), with the pronoun se, clitic placement, case marking, and word order. In each section, we will first consider how the OSp/OPt to ModSp/Pt shift indicates a move from uniclausal to biclausal S2. We will then show how this shift spread through the causative verbs, until it reached fazer and mandar. Finally, in 6, we will briefly consider two theories which attempt to provide a motivation for diachronic shifts in complement types. We will evaluate their ability to both predict and explain the shift from VP to IP/CP complements. 2. Use of the pronoun se 2.1 We want to explain why S2 se was unacceptable in OSp/OPt (5a), but is more acceptable in the modern languages (5b): (5a) e fez alguouos outra vez [bautizar] (Cron 1344 198:1) "and he had others (be) rebaptized" (5b) o sistema que faz [a raqa humana se desenvolver] (BrazFal 2:52:1409) "the system that makes the human race develop" A common view is that in uniclausal constructions, the SUBJ2 loses its status as an external argument (Zubizarreta 1985:274-80, Rosen 1989:72-4). Without this argument to delete, the pronoun se cannot be used. This is the OSp/OPt situation. As biclausal structures arise, the SUBJ2 maintains its status as external argument, and se can be used. 2.2 Let us now look at the data which shows the spread in the use of se. As suggested in (4), the shift towards the use of se started with the verbs of perception and peripheral causative verbs. The corpus indicates that in ModSp/Pt, these verbs generally allow se (14/14 cases in ModPt, 10/10 in ModSp): (6) o via sentar-se perto dos arrais (Cegos 116:2) "she saw him sit down near the edge" But in OSp/OPt, even these verbs often caused deletion of se (O/MidPt 3 cases, O/MidSp 8 cases), as seen in this example with ver in OSp:

110

DAVIES

(7) e non fue ninguno que lo asy viese defender, que non asmase que nuncafue onbre en el mundo que se podiese defender atanto commo se el defendio (HisTroy 85:1) "and there wasn't anyone who saw him defend himself in that way, who wasn't astounded that there was a man alive who could defend himself the way he did" Notice that the verb is the reflexive defenderse everywhere except where it is embedded under the verb of perception. It was these peripheral verbs that first allowed S2 se (about 1400 in both Spanish and Portuguese), as in the following example with ver from late OPt: (8) porque o vi doer se bem de seus pecados (Demanda 353:3) "because I saw him suffer quite severely, on account of his sins" Se then became acceptable with dexar, and only later with fazer, mainly in ModPt, as in this example from a modern European Portuguese novel: (9) o seu instinto...o fazia sentir-se urn cavalo "his instincts made him feel like a horse"

(Hornern 108:5)

The use of se has still not completely spread to fazer in ModSp, as evidenced by the following example, taken from a corpus of spoken Spanish in Caracas4: (10) el peso..los puede hacer hundir (Caracas 256:16) "the weight can make them sink" The expectation is that, given more time, cases like (10) will also be completely acceptable with se in Spanish. To summarize, we see the use of se spreading over time from the most peripheral verbs to the core verbs, and we see that it occurs faster in Portuguese than in Spanish. 3. Clitic placement 3.1 We are concerned with the change from (1 la) to (1 lb), in which in the modern languages the OBJ2 clitic sometimes does not climb into S1:

4

While the number of cases with S2 [+/- se] in ModPt/Sp is rather small in the corpus, conversations with native speakers of ModPt/Sp, as well as the findings in Finnemann (1982), confirm the observation.


111

(11a) non gelo dexaron [sacar del canpo] (HisTroy 170:2) "they didn't let them take him from the field of battle" (1 lb) nos iba a dejar [sacarlo] (Gazapo 9:14) "he was going to let us take it out" One explanation for both clitics climbing up is that clitics climb to INFL, at least in Spanish and Italian (Kayne 1989:240). In uniclausal constructions, there is only the S1 INFL, since the S2 is just a VP. As the S2 evolves towards a IP/CP structure, then clitic climbing will be blocked, because the OBJ2 clitic cannot move past the new S2 INFL (Kayne 1989, Bordelois 1988:69-75, Rosen 1989:102-16, Pearce 1990:280-7). 3.2 Let us examine how the innovative [cl-cl] clitic position arose at the expense of the older [cl+cl]. As to be expected, this change started first with the peripheral causative verbs, as in the following example with ayudar "to help" in OSp: (12) les ayudauan [de [los uencer & los desbaratar]] (EstEsp 65r) "they helped them to thwart and defeat them" The data indicates that in the corpus, at least, the [cl-cl] placement was the norm with these peripheral verbs by the early 1500s (e.g. 15/15 cases in MidSp). In about 1500, we find the first case of the innovative [cl—cl] clitic placement with dexar, a causative verb which occupies an intermediate position between the core and peripheral causative verbs, both synchronically and diachronically: (13) dexame [mirarte] toda, a mi voluntad (Celestina 249:1) "let me freely take a good look at you" But even in the 1500s, approximately half of the cases with dexar still had the older [cl+cl]: (14) /Gracias a Dios, que te me dexó [ver]! (Celestina 60:10) "thanks be to God, who let me see you!" Turning to fazer, it is no surprise that all OSp/Pt examples (7/7 OPt, 20/20 OSp) have the original [cl+cl], as in the OSp:

112

DAVIES

(15) fizo gelo [beuer] por fuerça "he forced her to drink it"

(EstEsp 102v)

The difference with fazer is that while the other causative verbs have evolved away from clitic climbing ([cl+cl]), this has happened only slightly with fazer in Spanish, and is still somewhat tentative in ModPt, at least as far as this corpus of mainly written prose goes.5 Finnemann (1982:256-432) and others show, however, that the innovative [cl-cl] sequence is becoming more common in the spoken registers of the modern languages. 4. Case marking 4.1 Let us now look at the shift in case marking of the SUBJ2 of transitive S2, from DAT in the older stages (16a) to ACC in the modern languages (16b). We will not deal with intransitive verbs, where case marking has always been mainly ACC. It is with the subject of transitive S2 that there has been a major change-from DAT to ACC. (16a) eu lhe ffarey logo [negar a doutrina] (Barlaam 74:1) "and then I will make him deny the doctrine" (16b) o fazia [trocar o dia pela noite] (Corça 187:2) "it made him confuse the day with the night" A common explanation for the original DAT case marking is that in the uniclausal constructions, both S2 NPs become objects of VERB1. By analogy with simplex constructions, some type of case template assigns ACC case to the first OBJ in the string, and DAT to the second OBJ. Assuming that the 'standard' Romance causative word order is [S2 VOS] (see 5.1), the OBJ2 will be assigned ACC case, and the SUBJ2 will receive DAT case (Zubizarreta 1985:269, Burzio 1986:233-4, Goodall 1987:110-11, Rosen 1989:56-61, Pearce 1990:156-61). Presumably, in biclausal structures the two S2 NPs can be case marked independently, since they are not both objects of Si. Therefore, the SUBJ2 can be case marked ACC by the VERB1, independent of the ACC marking of the S2 DO by the VERB2.

5

In written European Portuguese, the contracted forms (e.g. mo=me+mo, lha=lhe+a) are still acceptable. In some spoken registers of EP, however, they are now unacceptable, which thus prevenus [cl+cl] sequences with causatives. In spoken Brazilian Portugues, these contracted forms have died out, thus forcing [cl—cl] sequences, or else the deletion of the OBJ2 clitic (cf. Wheeler 1981, Kata and Tarallo 1986).


113

4.2 Looking at how the innovative ACC marking spread through the causative verbs, we expect that it started first with the peripheral causative verbs and verbs of perception, and only later spread to the core causatives. This is what we do in fact find. Starting with the verbs of perception, the corpus indicates that the modern languages normally take ACC case marking, and more so in Portuguese than in Spanish:6 (17) viu-o enterrar as maos nos cabelos (Hornern 134:4) "she saw him bury his hands in his hair" However, in OSp/OPt, even these verbs often took DAT 7 , as in this OPt example: (18) quando lhe viu seu doo fazer (Demanda 383:1) "when she saw him lamenting his bad fortune" As early as the OSp/Pt period, these verbs of perception and the non-core causative verbs like dexar started taking ACC. Note the following example with dexar from late OPt: (19) o fez leixar a fe de JhesuCristo (Cronl344 198:1) "it made him abandon his faith in J.C." By ModSp/Pt, verbs such as dexar and ver take ACC in most cases8, again more so in ModPt than in ModSp. The situation is somewhat different with fazer. While ACC case marking has spread to fazer in ModPt9 and is now almost the rule, as in (20), (20) faziam-na tornar o cavalo e seguir o marido (BrazSS 153:3) "they made her take her horse and follow her husband"

6

In the corpus, ACC with ver SUBJ2 clitics is more common in ModPt (4/4) than in ModSp from non-leista Latin American dialects (2/4). In addition, 8/8 Mid/ModPt full NP SUBJ2 are ACC. In Spanish, the 'personal a' does not permit us to determine ACC/DAT marking with full NP SUBJ2. 7 With ver, 4/4 O/MidPt SUBJ2 clitics = DAT, but 4/4 full NP SUBJ2 = ACC. In O/MidSp, 5/6 SUBJ2 clitics with ver = DAT. 8 With dexar, 5/6 SUBJ2 clitics are ACC in ModSp, and 6/6 are [-DAT] in ModPt, with 5 of them NOM: (1) nåo deixaram êle comprar um canal de televisäo (BrazFal 2:115:662) "They didn't let him buy a TV channel" 9 With fazer clitics, only 1/29 = ACC in OPt, 0/8 in MidPt, but 10/20 in ModPt are ACC.

114

DAVIES

a slim majority of the cases with fazer in the corpus in ModSp are still D A T 10 . Once again, the expectation is that the innovation (this time ACC case marking) will eventually become the norm with fazer in Spanish, which has changed more slowly than has Portuguese. 5. Word order 5.1 Let us now examine the word order change from the OPt (21a), which has Verb-Subject (VS) word order:, to the ModPt (21b), with SV: (21a) fez ante si [viir seu filho Recarredo] "he made his son R. come before him"

(Cronl344 199:1)

(21b) fazer [o pais chegar aos destinos] (BrazSS 227:2) "to made the nation rise to its destiny" A common view regarding word order with SUBJ2 of causative sentences has to do with subject movement to INFL. In finite clauses the subject, which is base-generated postverbally, can move to [SPEC,INFL] and occur preverbally: (22) [ip Mariai [ y p comió el pastel ei ]] In the S2 of the uniclausal Romance causative construction, there is no INFL to move to, and the subject remains in clause-final position 11 :

10 With fazer clitics, only 3/32 = ACC in OSp, 4/40 in MidSp, but nearly 40% ACC (7/19) in ModSp. 11 The assumption that the SUBJ2 is base-generated in postverbal position is a crucial one for most researchers. It is implicit in Zubizarreta (1985:283) and Goodall (1987:107), and is not elaborated on there. For Bordelois, the NP is actually a DAT controlller, which is postverbal by analogy with postverbal subjects in Spanish (1988:66). Rosen (1989:46-54) and Pearce (1990:50-64) are more explicit in their characterization of the internal constituency of the embedded VP. They suggest that the SUBJ2 is base-generated in [SPEC, VP] position, following work such as Sportiche (1988). The only theory to assume base-generated SVO order is Burzio (1986:229). Even with the [SPEC, VP] scenario, however, it is unclear why the [SPEC, VP] needs to be postverbal. Sportiche himself suggests that in French and Italian, it can in theory be either preverbal or postverbal. If we chose to base-generate it in preverbal position, then there would be no explanation for [52 VOS] word order with causatives. One explanation for postverbal [SPEC, VP] is that it naturally results from rightward case assignment in the Romance languages. But for some researchers (e.g. Pearce 1990:68) it is the VERB1 which assigns Case to SUBJ2, and either a pre- or postverbal (SPEC, VP] would be to the right of VERBi.


115

(23a) hicieron [VP trabajar a Maria] "they made Mary work" (23b) (le) hicieron [VP comer el pastel a Maria] "they made Mary eat the cake" In diachronic terms, the evolution towards an IP creates a preverbal landing site for the SUBJ2. 5.2 Most researchers assume (23b) to be the normal word order with transitive verbs. But this word order is virtually nonexistent in the corpus, in any period of either language, with any verb 12 . The most common word order is subject before verb (SVO), as in the following examples from OPt and OSp: (24a) esta he aquella que fez a Deos perder sanha do home (Virgeu 47:4) "this is the one that made God lose his anger towards men" (24b) dexaua al pueblo auer grand mengua (EstEsp 72r) "this made the people be in dire need" This suggests that there will be problems for any theory that tries to provide a rationale for word order change with both intransitive and transitive S2, because the subject final word order has never been normal with transitive clauses, as it has been with intransitive ones. Even with intransitive clauses, we do not find (at least in Spanish) the orderly syntactic shifts that we see with the other three syntactic phenomena. Portuguese had subject final (VS) word order with most verbs in OPt13:

12

One problem in determining word order with transitive S2 is deciding if the S2 NP is an indirect object or a subject: (la) te digo que no faças perder a teu senhor tal cousa como esta (Barlaam 60:1) "I'm telling you to not have such a great thing as this slip by your master" "I'm telling you to not let your master lose such a great thing as this" (lb) E Asdrubal fez saber a Anybal ... os maaos aqueecimientos (Cronl344 95:1) "and A. made known to A. / made A. aware of the sorry happenings" The great majority of transitive S2 in OSp/Pt and even MidSp/Pt are ambiguous in this way. But in those case where the second S2 NP is most likely a SUBJ, 10 cases with fazer are [52 SVO], somewhat less are [S2 VSO], and at most one is the supposedly common [52 VOS]. All clear examples with dexar (5/5) are [S2 SVO]. In all cases with ver where the S2 DO is not a relative pronoun (16/27), the word order is likewise [S2 SVO]. 13 With fazer, 20/28 cases with VINTR are subject final (VS) in OPt, as are 9/13 and 21/33 cases with dexar and ver, respectively. With all verbs, there is a split after OPt. Most prose texts move even more towards VS word order, while the spoken corpora and Brazilian prose (in general) rejects this trend. For example, 38/45 cases with fazer, 22/24 with dexar, and

116

DAVIES

(25) viram sair da aruore gotas de samgue (Arimathea 135r) "they saw drops of blood oozing out of the tree" By ModPt there has been a shift towards nearly uniform subject first (SV) placement (even with fazer), at least in the spoken language: (26) êle...faz a maquina funcionar "he makes the machine work"

(BrazFal 2:75:603)

As expected, this started first with the peripheral causative verbs and has only recently become common with fazer. In Spanish, on the other hand, there is no such clear shift. The most common word order in all stages, with all verbs, is V S 1 4 , as in the following OSp example: (27) las mugeres fazen errar al omne sabidor "women make even wise men go astray"

(Castigos 78:1)

This is in spite of the fact that there is a persistent minority of cases in all periods which are SV, as in MidSp (28). In Spanish, there has been no evolution towards SV word order with V I N T R , as there has been in Portuguese 1 5 . (28) la gran tormenta...hazia los arboles sallir de tierra (GrimGrad 430:1) "the huge storm made the trees come out of the ground [be uprooted]" In Portuguese, we again find the syntactic shift spreading through the causative verbs, beginning with verbs of perception and the peripheral causative verbs 1 6 , and only later reaching the core causatives fazer and mandår.

18/27 with ver in modern European Portuguese prose are VS. But in a corpus of spoken Brazilian Portugues, only 5/8 with fazer, 1/5 with dexar, and 2/10 with ver are VS. 14 The percent of VS in Spanish has been OSp 37/42, MidSp 29/35, ModSp 21/21 with fazer, OSp 5/8, MidSp 20/25, ModSp 13/14 with dexar, and OSp 22/34, MidSp 56/69, ModSp 22/24 with ver. As with ModPt, the spoken language is more SV, as Finnemann (1982) and others have noted. 15 This may simply be a result of a more pronounced general evolution towards standard SVO word order in Portuguese (especially spoken Brazilian Portuguese) than in Spanish. 16 With the exception of one or two questionable OSp/OPt cases, 86/86 cases of a peripheral causative verb (permitir, ordenar, exigir, etc.) with a S2 containing a full NP (both VINTR and VTRAN) take [S2 SV(O)] word order (e.g. le permitió [a Pedro leer (el libro)]).


117

Let us also note that the lack of [S2 VOS] word order with transitives, and the lack of word order shift toward SV in Spanish, may create problems for a theory in which word order change is necessarily linked to the use of se, clitic placement, and case marking, through one general parameter. 6. Motivations for the change in complement types 6.1 The preceding data clearly shows a uniclausal (VP) to biclausal (IP/CP) shift in both Spanish and Portuguese. The one complication is a lack of word order change in Spanish with intransitive S2- For some researchers, merely stating that there was a VP to IP/CP parametric shift is sufficient to explain the change. Others, however, prefer to look for underlying motivations for shifts in parameter settings. Let us follow this second path, and consider two possible motivations for the VP to IP/CP shift in Spanish and Portuguese. 6.2 The first possible motivation relies on the work of Kayne (1989), who deals with the relationship between null subjects and complements types. Kayne suggests that as languages lose the possibility of having null subjects, then the S2 INFL fails to L-mark the embedded VP. In the spirit of Chomsky (1986), he suggests that this creates a barrier between the matrix and embedded clauses, and biclausal structures arise. It is true that Brazilian Portuguese has been moving away from null subjects, because of a loss in verbal inflection (Lemle and Naro 1977, Tarallo 1985). According to Kayne, this would explain the rise in biclausal structures. But European Portuguese and all of the Spanish dialects still have null subjects, and yet they have also developed biclausal structures. 6.3 A second hypothesis might be based on the inflected infinitive which Portuguese possesses: (29) e näo deixava êles sairem (BrazFal 2:57:1653) "and didn't let them leave" Speaking in very general terms, the agreement on the infinitive indicates the presence of AGR in Portuguese causative S2, which in turn suggests some type of IP/(CP) clause structure. This contrasts with the reduced VP clauses which have been postulated for Spanish. Important evidence for the role of AGR in the evolution of the causative construction in Portuguese comes from our corpus of examples. In OPt, there is no evidence of the inflected infinitive with causative verbs in the 13 examples where it should be visible (with 2sg, l-2-3pl S2 subjects):

118

DAVIES

(30) nâo leixa os seus esperecer amies Ihes ajuda (Arimatea 149v) "he doesn't let his own perish without first giving them aid" It is only after OPt that the inflected infinitive becomes common with causative verbs, and this is the very time that we see a sharp increase in the biclausal features ([+se], [cl-cl], ACC) of the causative in Portuguese. In ModPt, where causatives are clearly biclausal, the inflected infinitive is used in 16/17 cases: (31) deixa êles irem para a freute (BrazFal 2:52:1423) "he lets them go ahead" Because of the inflected infinitive, we would expect the Portuguese causative construction to evolve towards biclausal characteristics ([+se], [clcl], ACC SUBJ2, SV(O)) faster than Spanish. In nearly every case, it does. We are still left, however, with the question of why Spanish, which does not have inflected infinitives, has also evolved (albeit more slowly) towards IP/CP S2. A possible solution may take the following form. Although Spanish does not have an inflected infinitive, it has diachronically evolved towards 'lexical subject + infinitive' more than French and Italian (Harris 1978:197): (32) después de salir ellos, volvimos a nuestra ciudad "after they left, we returned to our city" In some dialects of Spanish, there has even been an evolution towards 'infinitive + preverbal lexical subject: (33) pasó antes de yo mudarme para acâ "that happened before I moved here" Sentences (32) and especially (33) represent an intermediate stage between 'no lexical subjects with infinitive' to the Portuguese 'inflected infinitive'. Suner (1986) suggests that the S2 in sentences like (33) have an IP node, but that AGR is set to [-AGR]. Lipski (1991) claims, however, that there is an abstract [+AGR], but that AGR marking on the infinitive is nonovert. For Lipski, the only difference between Portuguese and the Spanish dialects that allow (31) would be the surface realization of AGR. From a less theoretical standpoint, Maurer (1969) shows how sentences like (32)-(33) were important in the historical evolution of the Portuguese inflected infinitive. Brakel (1980) suggests the same thing synchronic ally. All of this is evidence for a VP to IP/CP shift in both Portuguese and Spanish, and


119

suggests why the Portuguese causative has evolved more quickly than in Spanish. 6.4 We are still left with the problem of explaining why the syntactic shift slowly spread through the verbs, from the peripheral to the core causatives fazer and mandar. If there was one general parameter shift in the grammar, then it should have affected all of these verbs at the same time. The explanation may have to do with what Givon (1980) refers to as the 'binding hierarchy of complements'. He suggests that there is an iconic relationship between the semantics of the causative verb and its complement type. A causative verb such as fazer 'to make' has a higher degree of 'intended/controlled' causation than peripheral verbs like pedir/sugerir/permitir 'to ask/suggest/permit', which have 'unintended/uncontrolled' causation. He argues that: the higher a verb is on the binding scale, the less would its complement tend to be syntactically encoded as an independent clause.

Applying this to our diachronic facts, we see that the VP to IP/CP shift started first with those verbs which had the most independent S2 to begin with, and gradually spread towards the verbs which were higher on the binding scale. 6.5 In their articles dealing with 'lexical subjects + infinitives', both Suffer and Lipski combine a rather formal account of clausal types with a more typological approach (general surface structure word order rules / marked vs. unmarked NPs and verb forms) to explain the Caribbean infinitival constructions. I suggest that such an approach can likewise explain the evolution of Spanish and Portuguese causatives. The formal change is a VP to IP/CP shift, motivated by emergence of AGR in the S2- The typological insight is that the change spread from peripheral to core causative verbs in accordance with an iconically motivated 'binding hierarchy'. The approach we have presented here explains 1) why Spanish and Portuguese have evolved at all (rise in S2 AGR), 2) the gradual (vs. abrupt) nature of the change, 3) the direction of the evolution (VP to IP/CP), 4) why Portuguese has evolved quicker than Spanish (inflected infinitive), and 5) why the change has gradually spread through the various verbs of perception and causative verbs in the way that it has (binding hierarchy).

120

DAVIES

REFERENCES Aissen, Judith and David Perlmutter. 1983. "Clause Reduction in Spanish". Studies in Relational Grammar, ed. by David Perlmutter, 360-303. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Beardsley, Wilfred A. 1921. Infinitive Constructions in Old Spanish. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Bordelois, Ivonne. 1988. "Causatives: From Lexicon to Syntax". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:57-93. Brakel, Arthur. 1980. "Infinitives. Subjects, Word Order, and Case in Portuguese and Spanish". Hispania 63:85-91. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Foris. Chamberlain, Jeffrey T. 1986. Latin Antecedents of French Causative faire. New York: Peter Lang. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Davies, William and Carol Rosen. 1988. "Unions as Multi-predicate Clauses". Language 64:52-88. Finnemann, David A. 1982. Aspects of the Spanish Causative Construction. Unpublished dissertation. Univ. of Minnesota. González Muela, Joaquin. 1954. El infinitiv o en El Corbacho del Arcipreste de Talavera. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Gibson, Jeanne and Eduardo Raposo. 1986. "Clause Union, the Stratal Uniqueness Law, and the Chômeur Relation". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:295-331. Givon, Talmy. 1980. "The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements". Studies in Language 4:33-77. Goodall, Grant T. 1987. Parallel Structures in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Gougenheim, Georges. 1929. Etude sur les périphrases verbales de la langue français. Paris: Les Belles Letres. Harris, Martin. 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax: A Comparative Approach. London: Longmans. Kato, Mary A. and Fernando Tarallo. 1986. "Anything YOU Can Do in Brazilian Portuguese". Studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Carmen Silva-Corvalân, 343-58. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard. 1989. "Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing". The Null Subject Parameter, ed. O. Jaeggli and K. Safir. 239-61. Dordrecht: Kluwer.


121

Lemle, Miriam, and Anthony J. Naro. 1977. Competências básicas do português. Rio de Janeiro: Fundaçao Movimento Brasileiro de Alfabetizaçâo. Lipski, John. 1991. "In Search of the Spanish Personal Infinitive". New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Dieter Wanner and Douglas Kibbee. 201-20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martineau, Frances. 1990. "La construction 'accusatif avec infinitif' avec les verbes causatifs et de perception en moyen français". Revue Québécoise de la Linguistique 19:77—100. Maurer, Theodoro. 1968. O infinitiv o flexionado em português. Sao Paulo: Editôra Nacional. Muller, Henri-François. 1912. "Origine et histoire de la preposition 'à' dans les locutions du type 'faire faire quelque chose à quelqu'un'. Poitiers: Masson. Norberg, Dag. 1945. '"Faire faire quelque chose à quelqu'un': recherches sur l'origine latine de la construction romane". Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 12:65-106. Pearce, Elizabeth. 1990. Parameters in Old French syntax: Infinitival Complements. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pollock, J.-Y. 1988. "Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP". Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424. Radford, Andrew. 1976. "On the Non-transformational Nature of Syntax: Synchronic and Diachronic Evidence from Romance Causatives". Romance Syntax, ed. by Martin Harris. 69-95. Salford: U Salford P. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1989. Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. Unpublished dissertation. Brandeis University. Saltarelli, Mario. 1980. "Syntactic Diffusion". Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott. 183-91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sportiche, D. 1988. "A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure". Linguistic Inquiry 19:425-49. Strong, David R. 1983. Aspects of the Diachrony of the Italian Causative Construction.. Unpublished dissertation. Univ. of Michigan. Suner, Margarita. 1986. "Lexical Subjects of Infinitives in Caribbean Spanish". Studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Carmen SilvaCorvalán. 189-204. Dordrecht: Foris. Tarallo, Fernando. 1985. "Filling the Gap: Pro-drop Rules in Brazilian Portuguese". Selected Papers from the XIIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Larry King and Catherine A. Maley. 355-75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985.

122

DAVIES

Wheeler, Dana. 1981. "Object Deletion in Portuguese". Current Researches in Romance Languages, ed. by James P. Lantolf and Gregory B. Stone. 20720. Bloomington, IN: IULC. Zagona, Karen 1980 "Evidence for VP Complements in Spanish". Papers in Romance. Vol 3. Supp 2. 185-93. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1985. "The Relation between Morphophonology and Morphosyntax: The Case of the Romance Causatives". Linguistic Inquiry 16:247-89.

IS THERE AN INDIAN SPANISH? YOLANDA LASTRA Universidad National Autónoma de México 0.

Introduction It has always seemed interesting to me to find out to what extent Indian languages have influenced Spanish. Hispanicists often refuse to see the obvious influence of some of these languages upon Spanish. A typical statement is one found in a paper by Lope Blanch on Yucatecan Spanish: Ante culaquier fenómeno lingüistico anómalo debe comenzarse por buscarle una explicatión interna sistemática. Sólo cuando la innovatión o desviación no puede explicarse dentro de las posibilidades propias del sistema castellano, deberân volverse los ojos en otra direction. Solo entonces podrá buscarse una raiz en la lengua de sustrato o adstrato (1987:8).

If this dictum is carried to its logical conclusions, if a variety of Spanish is in contact with another langauge and they both share a feature, it cannot be attributed to language contact if in some other remote Spanish area the same feature happens to exist as well. In the Andean area the influence of Quechua and Aymara upon Spanish has been studied by Nardi (1976-77), Lozano (1975), and Escobar (1978). Guarani influence on monolingual speakers of Spanish in Resistencia has been studied by Quant and Irigoyen (1980). In Mexico, Lope himself has been interested in studying the influence of Mayan in Yucatecan Spanish. There are also some articles by Alvar (1969) and Cassano (1977). Dora Pellicer (in press) has been interested in Mazahua Spanish, but not from the point of view of language contact, but noticing rather the successful way in which Mazahua women communicate in Spanish. Zimmerman (1986) has an article on Otomi Spanish, and I have published two articles on the subject. However, to my knowledge, there have not been any large scale studies in areas where it would obviously be fruitful to undertake them, that is, in areas where the Indian language is spoken by a proportionately large number of people such as the Huasteca area, where there are many speakers of Nahuatl, or the Tehuatepec area where surely there must be Zapotec influence.

124

LASTRA

The present paper is a small-scale study of the influence of two Indian languages on Spanish. The sites selected were San Andrés Cuexcontitlan, an Otomi town in the vicintiy of Toluca, and San Jerónimo Amanalco, a Nahuatl town in Texcoco. San Andrés is located in the municipality of Toluca about 12 kilometers from the city of Toluca, which is the capital of the state of Mexico. There are two other towns in the municipio where Otomi is still spoken: San Pablo Autopan and San Cristobal Huichochitlan. There are many towns to the north where the language is spoken, but there doesn't seem to be much contact among them. In San Andrés Otomi is spoken by adults about 30 or older, and it is still understood by children. San Jerónimo is one of three towns in Texcoco were Nahuatl is preserved. The other two are Santa Maria Tecuanulco and Santa Catarina del Monte. I studied San Andrés Otomi while preparing a volume for the Archivo de Lenguas Indigenas de México (1989) and a book of texts and vocabulary (1993). San Jerónimo Nahuatl is a dialect of Central Nahuatl, which is to say that it is very close to classical Nahuatl (Lastra 1980). The Spanish of the towns in question has not ben considered in the literature, but both Toluca and Texcoco are very close to Mexico City, so we can assume that their Spanish does not differ much from that of the capital. Samples of the Spanish spoken by six bilingual adults and 18 children were collected in each town. The adults were asked to tell a story in their native language and then re-tell it in Spanish. The children were interviewed at school. 1 I will first discuss the influence of their native language on the Spanish phonology, grammar, and lexicon of the Otomi bilinguals and show that some of the features of adult speech are still present in that of the children. Next the same will be done for the Nahuatl town and then some conclusions will be proposed. Before considering their speech a few remarks on each speaker seem pertinent: Paula. About 65 years old, housewife, has never left her native town. No schooling and is practically monolingual in Otomi. Juana. about 45 years old. Housewife, has never left San Andrés. No schooling. Otomi dominant, speaks Spanish with a heavy accent. Pedro. About 60 years old. Agricultural worker who has traveled to many towns selling merchandise. Perhaps Otomi dominant, but his Spanish is very good. Agustfn. About 46 years old. Farmer who has traveled to other towns in Mexico selling handicrafts. About two years of primary school. Otomi 1 The school in San Andrés is called Ejido de la Y and that of San Jerónimo is the Escuela Primaria Federal Bilingue y Bicultural "Cuauhtemoc".

IS THERE AN INDIAN SPANISH?

125

dominant, but communicates well in Spanish, although with a noticeable accent. Juliana. About 40 years old. Housewife. Worked in Mexico City for a short period of time. Otomi dominant. Trini. About 38 years old. Housewife who has not left San Andrés. Some primary school. Speaks Spanish with a slight accent. 1. Phonology of San Andrés Spanish Final /r/ and /r + C/ are frequently assibilated: tejef, hacer, terminarlo, mayofcita, catofce. The Spanish trill is also frequently assibilated: řopa, řápido, řicos, teřeno, bořacho,fieřo. In Otomi there is a flap and in loans one finds /r/ for the trill: ra (article), singri "corn silk", ban "barrel". Assibilation of /r/ is not an Otomi feature, but can probably be attributed to non-standard Spanish, although nowadays there seems to be a change in progress and it is even heard in radio announcers. Lope (1991) found a fricative /r/ in Toluca in final position in 30% of the community and the voiceless assibilated one in 20%, and one of his informants, an agriculturalist had it 50% of the time. It seems that lower class monolinguals assibilate frequently and that Otomi speakers have had them as their models. In any case, Agustin and Pedro who are good speakers of Spanish have no /r/. Trini, who is also a very good speaker does have it, and it may be because the trait in monolingual Spanish is more frequent in women than in men, but much more research on this feature is necessary. The palatal semi-consonant is frequently realized without any friction: tortia, eios, tortiita, Via Seca, casteiano. All informants have this feature, but it is not very frequent for Trini. It is frequent in Juliana's speech, but she also occasionally has [j ]. Otomi has no final /s/, and this is reflected in the Spanish of all adult speakers: lo sombrero, estos nina, dosciento, andabamo, vierne, unos dia, tonce, de vera, lejo, and so on. This is a very common feature. There is also a lack of final /n/, which is also a feature of Otomi, but this is not as frequent as lack of final /s/. viene(n), sabe(n), piensa(n), etc. The lack of these two final consonants is very noticeable due to the important part they play in the grammar of the language. Spanish /f/ is rarely realized as a labiodental. It may be [x], [ph], or [Φ]: xwiste, xwi, xwéramo, phondo, phrio, phalda, suphriendo, Φueron, Φuersa. The voiced dental fricative occasionally appears initially as it would in Otomi. The Spanish voiced fricative variants are sometimes realized as stops: compraba, nada, llegó.

126

LASTRA

The palatal nasal is usually /n/ + /i/: ninio, albanil, espaniol, seniora. In Otomi there are nine oral vowels and three nasal ones. This system is reflected in the Spanish of bilinguals who often have strong nasalization before or after nasal consonants: mänta, compraba, mäs, mäquina, mämä. Spanish /a/ is occasionally reduced to [9]: pagәos, bәbida, todәbia, teh. Spanish /o/ may become [0] : crgvllosa, bcnita, tiempo, conoce. /e/ also laxes to [ε], but less frequently: viajε, pulque, diεro, mueran.. /u/ is occasionally lowered to lol: mochacho, osté. Final vowels are sometimes followed by an aspiration in the speech of Juliana, Paula, Juana, and, occasionally, Agustin: séh, ellah, usamoh. More often vowels are followed by a glottal stop: palma?, asi?, dice?, México?. It also very common to find initial vowels preceded by a glottal stop: ?el, ?(h)acia, ?ora, ultimo, ?(h)ijo. A phonological feature which is very typical of the speech of bilinguals is high, or rising pitch, sometimes matching the places where pitch would be high in Spanish, but it sounds higher than usual. We will now give examples of words with different structure in the speech of bilinguals. A recurrent feature is the omission of unstressed initial vowel or sometimes whole syllables: (a)hora, (i)maginaba, (a)nidieron, (a)tababa, (a)garron, (hu)biera), (a)marro, (em)piezo, (en)tender. This seems to be a non-standard feature. The following examples also seem to be instances of lower-class Spanish rather than of Otomi interference. Nesitaba, tabliada, âhi te la tira, quero, vistirlo, nisierto, dicia, pior, cualquer, tamién, pidia, realmente, piones, sigadera, dispues, peliando, lueu (luego), (d)escalzo, losotro (nosotros), preba (privada). Another example which I have never heard from monolinguals is sin en cambio, which must from "sino en cambio". This is a passage taken from "La historia que era ante"by Juliana. She says: Nadie me comprabe de lo que yo necitaba la excuela, nadie. Si me pedian utile nadie me lo compraba, nadie me lo compraba y sin en cambio ahorita en este tiempo ps tiene que comprarles todo, pero an teh... Children are all Spanish dominant, but nevertheless their speech preserves some of the features found in that of their parents. However, the following features were not found: f>o, nasalization, occurrence of 0 and s, and tone. There are examples of all of the others but they are not as frequent as in the speech of the adults.


127

2. Grammar of San Andrés Spanish There is no gender in Otomi. In Otomi Spanish we frequently hear lack of agreement in gender: en eso tiempo, estos nina, en eso dia, otro forma, este cuenta, ese escuela, el escarda, mucho milpa. The fact that final /s/ is not often present accounts for lack of agreement in number as in: sus mano del él, somos cuatro o cinco hermano, no sé cuanto ahOy eso es los primeros que les dije, le ayudo mis hermanos, una ya son jóvenes. The definite article is sometimes omitted as in: se fue solito con novio, con mano sucia, todo tiempo. Rather frequently we find a possessive adjective instead of the article: su papa de la senora instead of el papa de la senora. This is, or course, very common everywhere in the Spanish world. The Otomi construction would be:

that her father the lady ese su papa la senora the lady's father On the other hand, the article is always used with proper nouns, as in Otomi, and as is common in other Spanish-speaking areas: la Tere, el José (ra tere,aAXosé). The indefinite article is sometimes omitted: Le puso fierro para atornillar ("Le pusieron un fierro para atornillarlo"). It is very common to find the demonstrative ese used instead of a personal pronoun: También ese, dice sabia cortar ropa ("También ella, dicen, sab fa cortar ropa"); ese preocupaba por su nieto ("Ella se preocupaba por su nieto); pero su mamá no, ese no sabia eso ("Pero su marna no, ella no sabia eso"). We also find ese instead of eso in the above example and in ese se ponia instead of eso se ponia.. There is often lack of agreement between third person plural subjects and the verb because of the non-occurrence of final /n/. Ellos compra; los ninos ya no se esta dejando; si se junta esos persona.. The reflexive pronoun is sometimes omitted: Tu peinas sola; quiso casar ; quebró una pata; quedó alla; ustedes le hace fâcil ("A ustedes se les hace fâcil"). But sometimes the verb is considered reflexive when it isn't: Se crece el maicito; iDe dóndeseva a salir tanto dinero? One of the more difficult problems for the Otomi speaker is the Spanish use of the direct object pronouns. Lo is often used redundantly as in: Nadie me lo

128

LASTRA

compraba a mi lo que yo necesitaba; jhasta colcha lo usamo!; luego lo sacas tu carrizo. The direct object pronoun often does not agree with its antecedent as in the second example with colcha above and in the following. Si me pedian utile, nadie me lo compraba; hora ya quitate tu ropa porque te lo vas a ensuciar. Lo usually substitutes la, los, or las, but the plural may also be used for the singular. Lo may be used instead of the indirect object pronoun: Todo lo que lo dan lo usan; la cuenta no lo sale. In Otomi there are a few prepositions. The more frequent one is ga 'of'. The use of Spanish prepositions seems very difficult, however. We find them omitted, used superfluously, or we may find the wrong preposition. Examples of omission are: No ese tiempo nadie; sali la excuela; dale la Mari; lo quieren meter la secundaria; ve a dejarle un taco la senora; boisa lona; va la tienda. Examples of superfluous use are: Me sali de en esa casa; yo me imagino de donde hay vaca y venden leche hay un poco de dinero; no hay de zapatos; entiende den otomi; piensa a ir a ver. Examples of the wrong preposition are: Tenia que ir en esa hora; voy a coser pero todo en la mano; le ayudâbamos por el gasto; iqué van a estar haciendo aqui a la casa? no quere ir en ese escuela; me he entrado ahi nesa casa.. Comparison also presents problems. These are a few examples: Un poco pobre mâs que ahorita instead of un poco mas pobre que ahorita. Ella mâs grande de su hermano instead of ella era mâs grande que su hermano. Su cabeza ese vibora como igual como una cabeza deperro instead of la cabeza de esa vibora era igual a una cabeza de perro or era como una cabeza de perro. Verbs in Otomi Spanish frequently differ from standard usage. The verb ser is sometimes omitted. In Otomi there is no comparable verb. Consider the following examples, with similar structures in Otomi Spanish. a. the pepper red b.

that the tree

big-3rd p. perf

No se que cosa lo que tenia Porque un cuartillo i/ué tanto ? A lo mejor (le) tocó campanero.

Verb forms, including tense and/or person-number marking may also vary:


129

a.

Concord Las ninas ya que empiece a yéndose a los esto ano. Desde que tiempo has sido tornado. (Desde que tiempo has estado tomando/has sido borracho) Tu siguiendo trabajando.

b.

Person Les digo ya ves (ven) ustedes no quieren. Si quiere (quieres), vete. Uste no piensa (Tu no piensas en) tu pueblo. c.

Tense Oiamos que se zotó (azotaba) lapuerta. Me sirve (sirvió) para que me fuera a Toluca. Mejor que acaba (acabe) alli que muere (muera) alli.

I have given examples of peculiar grammatical features in the speech of adults. Comprable constuctions are also found in the speech of children, but not as frequently. There are examples of lack of gender agreement, lack of number agreement in noun phrases, ese used instead of personal pronouns; definite articles omitted or wrongly used; omission of reflexive pronouns; lack of agreement of direct object pronouns; redundant use of direct object pronouns; wrong use of prepositions; verbs in the wrong tense. No examples of lack of agreement of subject and verb or of peculiarities in comparative constructions occurred in the sample. On the other hand, some of the children used the form los for nos and losotro for nosotros. I had encountered similar forms in Los Angeles Spanish. There was also an instance of an adjective occurring before its head: un chiquito jardin as in English and Otomi. 3. Lexical peculiarities in Otomi Spanish Let us now turn to the lexicon of Otomi adults. The following nouns have special forms or meanings in Otomi Spanish. chorón "rag"(not attested in standard dictionaries) escarda "to pile earth around corn stalks"(usually "to pull weeds") besana "unsown paths between fields"(usually fallow land) harcina "stack of com stalks"(tocwa in Santamaria: ) oreja "hat brim" (ala in std. Spanish) horma "crown of a hat" (copa in std. Spanish) apurar sombrero "hurry up and weave hats" casi éramos cuatro "there were only four of us"

130

LASTRA

un pedazo de ropa "a piece of clothing"(std. una prenda de ropa) llevan ese genio "they have that custom" asi lo utilizan este tiempo "they are used to it nowadays"(std. asi lo acostumbran en esîos tiempos) le crecieron él "they brought him up" no pudiste vivilo "you couldn't support him" esa bicicleta que habian drogado "that bicycle they had gone into debt for" de ahi se compuso "it got better from then on" de ahi ya le dieron las medicinas "after that, they gave her medicines" segun era rancho de un patrón "segun dicen, era rancho de un patrón" Cuando supo que su enfermedad era incurable ya me regano "...gave me advice"(std. "to scold") There are no examples of comprable usages in the speech of the Otomi children. 4. Repetition in Otomi Spanish discourse Lastly, I would like to touch upon one feature of discourse. This is repetition. It is very common in Otomi to repeat an important sentence or phrase either with the same words or with similar ones. This is carried over into Spanish as when Juliana says (in English translation): "As I was telling you before, as my aunt told you, before it was very different from now, it was very poor, poorer than it is now, the town, it was poorer than what it is now, the town, because...". Such repetitions are very frequent, and also appear in the stories told by the children. Consider the following three examples. Then she cut her hair, then she cut her hair short, and then she tied it there. It was like a window, like a door, then there she cut her hair, and she tied it". When the girl was about to be born, he was going to give her away to the witch, he said nothing, why I know not then he said nothing. Then a prince was going by, a prince was going by and then Azucena was singing and then later she was singing, and then later the prince hears her, he heard her singing, then he approached.

I believe these examples give a flavor of the speech of these children caught between two worlds: their Cinderella is very modern, the stepmother, the step sisters, and Cinderella read about the ball in the newspaper and they heard


131

about the death of Cinderella's father because they got a telephone call, and yet the style of the tales is unquestionably still Otomi. 5. Nahuatl Spanish phonological and grammatical features Now we will examine some of the features of the Spanish of native speakers of Texcoco Nahuatl. The adult speakers are: Rebeca, a primary school teacher about 45 years old. Balanced bilingual with a Nahuatl accent. Lupe, teaches sewing and was away from San Jerónimo about ten years. About 30 years old, probably Spanish dominant but with a slight Nahuatl accent. Jerónima, about 40 years old, housewife, but also runs a little store. Finished secondary school, balanced bilingual, but with a Nahuatl accent. Vidal, 96 years old. No schooling, balanced bilingual, difficult to tell which is his native language. Maria, fish vendor. Primary school, balanced bilingual with slight Nahuatl accent. The children interviewed were in the 3rd and 6th grades, all Spanish dominant. Nahuatl has four vowels, / i e o a / with distinctive length. Since there is no /u/ the range for /o/ is from a low [0] to a fairly open [c]. The most obvious feature of Nahuatl Spanish is the raising of /o/ to something that sounds like /u/ to Spanish speakers: todu, tenemus. Spanish /u/ is sometimes rendered as /o/'. los instead of luz, oso for uso. Speakers also tend to make unstressed vowels voiceless. HI is lower than in the Spanish of monolinguals. Stressed vowels are often lengthened: [pala:bras], [sé:], [okó:te]. Initial vowels may be preceded by a glottal stop: [?ai] 'hay'. Nahuatl Spanish consonants seldom differ from standard Spanish. Neither the flap nor the trilled /r/ varies from standard articulations. The palatal semiconsonant lacks friction: sia, semia, bombia (< silla, semilla, bombilla). The palatal nasal /n/ is depalatalized (albanil). In grammatical features, there are some similarities with Otomi Spanish, but with lesser frequency. Lack of gender agreement: tortias aunque martajaditos Lack of definite article: (son) mas sabrosas de metate Lack of indirect object pronoun: ?Cuânto se debe a cada uno? Lack of subject-verb agreement: las tortillas se le quemó Redundant object pronoun: yo nunca lo he visto nada; tantas cositas por aquide veras lo sabemos hacer

132

LASTRA

Lack of agreement of the direct object pronoun with its antecedent: la tortilla mas quemado lo echa en medio de los demâs Lack of prepositions: Compré un terreno Ocotlân; va a chupar la gente Incorrect prepositions: me ensenaron de hablar; moliamos a metate Inappropriate tense: Les preguntó a sus hijas qué es lo que querian que les traiga; Entons la madrina dijo que no llore; va a ver (instead of ve a ver); Wrong verb form; ves a ver tu marido está con otra y so no lo crees ves a ver Some of these features are parallel to those found among Otomi speakers. In addition, we find a curious repetition of the subject pronoun as in: yo los se yo hacer yo todo les he yo hablado Some of the above examples are from the speech of children. My impression is that the Spanish of these Nahuatl speakers is more standard that that of the Otomi. This may be due in part to Otomi phonology, which influences the loss of final /s/ and /n/, which are crucial to Spanish morphology.

6.

Conclusions

There is no question that the native language interferes in the second language and that some of the resulting features persist in the second generation, but the question still remains: To what extent will they be maintained in the future? I would predict that in small Indian communities surrounded by Spanish very little influence from the Indian language will survive. However, in regions comprable to a certain extent to the Resistencia area or to the Andean area the influence of the indigenous languages may be a lasting one. I think that in spite of some similarities in the grammatical features in the speech of the two towns examined, one cannot generalize and say that there is one 'Indian Spanish'. What they have in common may be due to similarities in the native languages, such as lack of gender, but they also differ in many other respecs. Research in Yucatán, Tehuantepec, and the Huasteca area will tell whether or not it is fair to talk about, let us say, a Mayan Spanish, a Zapotec Spanish, or a Nahuatl Spanish.


133

REFERENCES Alvar, Manuel. 1969. "Nuevas notas sobre el espanol de Yucatán". Iberoromania 1: 159-189. Cassano, P. 1977. "La influencia del many en la fonologia del espanol de Yucatán". Anuario de Letras 15: 95-113. Escobar, Alberto. 1978. Variaciones sociolingüisticas del castellano en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lastra, Yolanda. 1980. El nâhuatl de Tetzoco en la actualidad. México: UNAM. . 1989. Otomi de San Andrés Cuexcontitlan, Estado de México. Archivo de Lenguas Indigenous de México: El Colegio de México. . 1993. El Otomi de Toluca: Léxico y textos de San Andrés Cuexcontitlan. México: UNAM. Lope Blanch, Juan M. 1987. "Fisonomia del espanol yucateco". En Estudios sobre el espanol de Yucatán.. México: UNAM, pp. 5-19. . 1991. Atlas lingüistico de México I: Fonética. El Colegio de México. Lozano, Anthony. 1975. "Syntactic borrowing in Spanish from Quechua: the noun phrase". En Actas y Memorias del XXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Vol. 5, Lingüistica e indigenismo moder no en Amèrica Latina. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, pp. 297-306. Nardi, Ricardo. 1976-1977. "Lenguas en contacto: el substrato quechua en el Noroeste argentino". Filologia (Buenos Aires) XVII-XVni: 131-150. Pellicer, Dora. In press. "Storytelling in Mazahua Spanish". Internacional Journal of the Sociology of Language. Quant, Inès A. de y José Miguel Irigoyen. 1980. Interferencia guarani en la morfosintaxis y léxico del espanol subestandard de Resistencia . Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina: Facultad de Humanidades. Universidad Nacional del Noroeste. Zimmerman, Klaus. 1986. "El espanol de los otomies del Valle del Mezquital (México): un dialectal étnico". Actas del II Congreso Internacional sobre el Espanol de America, pp. 234-240.

FROM LEBRIXA'S GRAMMAR TO CARTESIAN LANGUAGE THEORY: A RETROJECTIVE VIEW CARLOS OTERO University of California, Los Angeles As everybody knows, 1492 was an eventful, and for some a fateful, year. The best known event was initiated on August 3 (by the Julian calendar), half an hour before sunrise, when a small fleet (three vessels) carrying ninety-odd men sailed out of the tiny Andalucian port of Palos de la Frontera, down the river Tinto and then out into the ocean, in search of, not a new hemisphere, but a new route to Asia, propelled by the irrational belief that it was as close to the edge of the West as what we now know America to be. A less widely known event of August of the same year was completed a week later (that is, before the Palos expedition reached the Canary Islands) when the last of the vessels carrying Jews who refused to be baptized weighed anchor in a near-by port (the decree of expulsion had been signed by the socalled Catholic king and queen ("reyes católicos") on March 31, and it is estimated to have applied to perhaps no less than 160,000 people). Still less known, and perhaps deservedly so, is that on August 18, one week after the last expelled Jew left the Andalusian port, the first Spanish grammar (in either sense)—one of the first books printed in the country—came off the Salamanca presses. In its opening and closing words we are told that it is "the grammar newly made by the master Antonio de Lebrixa about the Castilian language" ("la gramática que nuevamente hizo el maestro Antonio de Lebrixa sobre la lengua castellana").1 The author, also known as Nebrixa (later Nebrija), was one of those "pinnacles of Spanish humanism" Tzvetan Todorov speaks of in his book The conquest of America. Lebrixa was not his family name but the name of his hometown, near the banks of the Guadalquivir river, not far from Seville (Spain's control center and hub of its dealings with America). Since he believed that the Lebrixa of his birth could be traced back to a town called Nebrissa by the Romans, in his Latin writings he used the latinized form Elius Antonius 1 See the entry on Lebrixa in the "Primary sources" section of the References, below. Braselmann 1991 is presumably the most recent and the most extensive monograph on the 1492 grammar.

136

OTERO

Nebrissensis, following a practice which was common among classical scholars (he was known to his contemporaries primarily as a Latin scholar, not as the author of a vernacular grammar). The misnomer Nebrixa (later Nebrija) was somehow derived from Nebrissensis, exactly how I do not know.2 The Spanish grammar is perhaps the best known claim to fame of this renowned classical scholar, who usually wrote in Latin. It has been characterized as "the first full-scale grammar of a vernacular" (Percival 1975:249), a judgement which is obviously not beyond dispute. The development of the vernacular grammatical tradition in the Romance languages, which goes back to the thirteenth century (notably in the area of Provencal), was a very gradual process and counts among its achievements a brilliant grammatical sketch, Rules of the Florentine language (Regole della lingua fiorentina) by a celebrated "uomo universale" (Leon Battista Alberti) which was completed around 1450. Lebrixa's grammar opens with a much praised preface, addressed to the queen (Dona Isabel), his patron (like his remote predecessor Priscian, he seems to have been well connected socially). This preface is at once a key to the man, to the times, and to the subsequent reception of the book down to our own day. 3 It begins with a conclusion hardly open to doubt for the author ("una conclusion muy cierta"): "that language has always been the companion of empire" (in his words, "que siempre la lengua fue companera del imperio"); that language followed empire so closely that together they began, together they grew and together they flourished—and then together they decayed. As evidence for these claims Lebrixa offers the cases of Hebrew, Greek and Latin, which for him reached their highest points under Solomon, Alexander, and August, respectively. The same can be said of Castilian, he goes on to say, which was taken to Aragon and Navarre and from there to Italy as a comrade in arms of the groups "we" sent to rule those kingdoms ("a imperar en aquellos reinos"). Then, by the queen's "industry, effort and diligence", the "members and pieces of Spain, which were scattered in many places, were reduced and joined in a single body and unity of kingdom, the form and bond of which is ordered in such a way that many centuries, injury and times will not be able to break it or untie it"—at least in Lebrixa's wishful thinking. Here he is obviously referring to the conquest of the Muslim kingdom of Granada, another event of 1492 (it was completed on January 2, seven months before the three vessels left Palos).This was the last episode in the so-called 1

Not everyone uses the misnomer. See, e.g., Bywater 1908, or theWalberg (1909) or Alston (1969) editions. 3 See the extensive commentary in Illich 1981:33-44 (a referencel owe to Lee Harman). Cf. Todorov 1984:123.

FROM LEBRIXA'S GRAMMAR TO CARTESIAN LANGUAGE THEORY

137

"reconquest" of the territory of the Peninsula from the so-called "Moors", who had occupied most or large parts of it for centuries (a process begun in the year 7 l l ) . 4 From our vantage point the glorious conquest of that Granada is associated with the emergence of perhaps the earliest "modern state", the one Machiavelli (a generation younger than Lebrixa—25 years to be exact) had primarily in mind as he wrote his most influential book. 5 In other words, the episode could be taken as the very beginning of what Noam Chomsky, in a talk he gave in Mexico on January 5, 1991, as part of the symposium "Emancipation e identidad de America Latina:1492-1992", has called "the 500year system", that is, the system of European domination of the world, which "the New World Order" "is to extend further". The even more glorious conquest of the Caribbean Grenada, not to mention the infamy of Panama and the Persian Gulf slaughter, should be proof enough that half a millenium later the period of the "modern state" is still not over. Lebrixa clearly expected, or at least hoped, that the state which inaugurated the current era of interstate politics, that is, his state, would soon become the metropolis of a modern empire. He tells us in the preface that the Bishop of Avila (the same man who chaired the committee that began by advising the queen not to support Columbus' adventure) 6 took the words out of his mouth when he told him that as soon as the queen succeeded in subjugating "many barbarian peoples and nations of strange tongues", the peoples subjugated would need "to receive the laws that the victor imposes on the defeated, and with them our language", which, in Lebrixa's view, would be easier to learn with the help of his grammar. One can't help wondering whether this enthusiastic early promoter of "Spanish without pain" had any inkling that the

4

Cf. Chomsky's view (1992a): "The early Spanish-Portuguese conquests had their domestic counterpart. In 1492, the Jewish community of Spain was spelled or forced to convert. Millions of Moors suffered the same fate. The fall of Granada in 1492, ending eight centuries of Moorish sovereignty, made it possible for the Spanish Inquisition to extend its barbaric sway. The conquerors destroyed priceless books and manuscripts with their rich record of classical learning, and demolished the civilization that had flourished under the far more tolerant and cultured Moorish rule. The stage was set for the decline of Spain, and also for the racism and savagery of the world conquest -- 'the curse ofColumbus', in the words of Africa historian Basil Davidson [in Race & Class, Jan-March 1992]." 5 Which is perhaps why Machiavelli "actively disliked Ferdinand, calling him a shifty, shameless, tricky ruler" (æalways ready tostart a new military adventure because he had a ruthless efficient system of tax collection", "the formidably centralized bureaucracy" contributing "support on an unprecendented scale") "rather than a proper prince" (Adams 1977:51, ix). 6 It has been suggested that Lebrixa, who was much interested in natural history, in particular geography, would have also advised against the adventure, had he been consulted (see Rico 1983),

138

OTERO

subjugation he was advocating would soon lead to what Todorov has called "the greatest genocide in human history". What is clear is that the state that counted Lebrixa among its fervent apologists has also been the preferred model for many state ideologists since, in particular the ideologists of the Franco regime, who greatly admired the policies of the "Catholic king and queen" par excellence and borrowed from them some of the representative symbols of the period, including the yoke and the arrows of Spanish fascism. Lebrixa's general attitude towards the policies of the first "modern state", as understood by some supporters of Franco, is no doubt at the root of the extravagant worship he was accorded during the Franco era, and still is. The foreword by Franco's education minister of half a century ago to the edition of the 1492 grammar which was to be part of the commemoration of the quincentennial of Lebrixa's birth in 1944 (though it appeared with a two year delay) is of some interest in the present context. Here is a brief sample of the minister's rhetoric, reminiscent of that of his foreword to the national edition of the works of Menéndez Pelayo, the favorite ideologist of the regime: That "simple Lebrixian", son of modest parents ("de padres de mediocre condición"), "militates with brave impetus in the most pure line of the service to the fatherland" (the Spanish is no more transparent, but at least preserves the flavor of the original, where "Patria" has to be heard with a capital P; "milita con esforzado impetu en la linea mas pura del servicio a la Patria"). Lebrixa, he goes on, "senses that Spain's peak hour has arrived; that an epic of glorious events is in the offing; that a Golden Age of the letters and the arts is near, and he thinks that without a unified language the works of the thinkers cannot endure, nor can the feats be immortal, nor can the fecundity of the writers and poets be exemplary" ("presiente que ha llegado la hora culminante de Espana; que se prepara una epopeya de gloriosos sucesos; que se avecina un Siglo de Oro de las letras y las artes, y piensa que sin una lengua unificada no podrân ser durables las obras del pensamiento, ni immortales las hazanas, ni ejemplar la fecundidad de los escritores y poetas").This linguistic unity was to be "a solid and indisputable fact,[to be placed] above the speech of the regions and the vernacular varieties of dialects and forms typical of specific localities".7 In other words, for the minister of education in an early Franco cabinet in the mid 1940s, Lebrixa's views on linguistic uniformity are indistinguishable from the views of those who, like the sinister minister himself, supported and promoted J. Ibanez Martin, preface to the edition of Lebrixa's grammar by Galindo Romeo & Ortiz Munoz (1946). The minister doesn't say anything about the fact that the authority of Lebrixa, a non-Castilian speaker, was soon to be rejected by the Toledan Juan de Valdés and subsequently by other students of Spanish. Cf.Menéndez Pidal 1933.


139

Franco's repressive linguistic policies, which at the time were and for several decades after would continue to be a real nightmare for many non-Castilian speakers. But our topic today is a different one. On this occasion our concern is not Lebrixa's moral level but his intellectual level as reflected in his Spanish grammar. Our topic, in other words, falls within the purview of the "history of linguistics" (I return to the question of interpretation of this term). A serious attempt to locate Lebrixa's grammar in the historical scale has to begin by leaving out of consideration the Indian tradition, otherwise the game is too quickly over: Painini's grammar, which antedates Lebrixa's by almost twenty centuries, reflects a far more advanced stage of intellectual development—(cf. Staal 1974, 1976, 1988). The next step is to begin by distinguishing two main strands within the Western grammatical tradition up to Lebrixa's time, arguably not too much of an oversimplification. One is the strand of the so-called "speculative grammarians" of the pre-Renaissance, which can be traced back to the Stoics, Aristotle and ultimately Plato. Since it includes major and minor philosophers with an interest in the nature of language, we may call it the philosophical strand. As is well known, "much of what one thinks today as early linguistic enquiries fell under the general heading of philosophia" (Robins 1990:16). In sharp contrast with this tradition, there is a strand which can be traced back to the Alexandrian school of antiquity. What characterizes the Alexandrian approach is the concern for the use of language in the texts of the great classical authors, which is why it is sometimes called the tradition of classical scholarship or, more generally, literary scholarship.8 It is a mainstream view that "in the contrasting tendencies of the Stoic philosophers and the Alexandrian literary critics one sees the opposition between philosophical and literary considerations as the determining factor in the development of linguistics", that is, between the inquiry into the nature of languages and the emendation and appreciation of literary texts (cf. Robins 1990:26,34). It is hardly necessary to add that this opposition is still very much, which is instructive. 8 Possibly the best short history of the subject is Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1982, originally published in German in 1921, which has to be read with an awareness of Nietzsche's very different views, with which Wilamowitz sharply disagreed (see Lloyd-Jones 'Introduction to the English translation', pp. xi-xiii). For Wilamowitz the subject matter of "classical scholarship" (his term is "Philologie"), which "developed out of the grammatike of the Greeks" (mat is, out of the elementary teaching ofliterature-see below), is the whole of "Graeco-Romancivilisation in its essence and in every facet of its existence" the "division into the separate disciplines of language andliterature, archaeology, ancient history, epigraphy, numismatics and, latterly, papyrology" being possibly justified for him "only as a concession to the limitations of human capacity" (p. 1).

140

OTERO

It may be recalled that gramma is "best considered as a letter of the alphabet together with its phonetic values" andthat the term grammatike "meant no more at first than the understanding of letters" (Robins 1990:27,16). It is rendered "art of letters" in the first chapter of the 1492 grammar. Lebrixa goes on to translate the Greek term grammatikos, meaning "literary critic", as "letrado", the spoken form of "literato",which, like "literature", derives from the Latin word for "letters", that is, Greek grammata. A "College of Letters andSciences" is still part of some universities. The literary tradition associated with the Alexandrian school was very much alive fifteen hundred years later in Lebrixa's mind after his seven (or ten, in his computation) years of study in Italy. To avoid misunderstanding it should be kept in mind that in the 15th century the heirs of the Alexandrians were called, somewhat misleadingly, "humanists", in the familar sense preserved in the term "humanities" as opposed to the sciences.9 The humanists are the first "modern" philologists, that is, scholars interested in everything except "natural philosophy". They only feel at home in the vast realm of natural history (the gathering and organization of data). That's why Lebrixa, like other humanists, does not hesitate to use the term of opprobrium grammatista to refer to the scholastic grammarians (in Greek, grammatistes was a humble teacher of grammata, meaning "reading and writing").10 Lebrixa was then a "natural historian", not a natural scientist. It could not have been otherwise. The reason is that he was a few years older than Leonardo da Vinci and Columbus, who were born over a century before Galileo. Lebrixa, however, was no Leonardo. In fact, there isn't much that is really original in his grammar, which often fails to adhere to the tenets of rational inquiry, his ten years in the country most directly associated with the "Galilean style" notwithstanding. His model and most direct inspirer was Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457), the scholar credited with one of the first and most celebrated triumphs of the new 9

Misleadingly because the terms suggests that they were engaged in "human" as against "divine" letters, a distinction of which many pre-Renaissance "humanists" (including Lebrixa) didn't make much, in sharp contrast with the "humanists" of the Elightenment (recall the title Humanist without porfolio, a collection of Wilhelm von Humboldt's writings). As is well known, the enlightened, and characteristically German, "humanism" of 18th century, associated with Winckelmann (a decisive influence), Lessing, Herder, Goethe and Humboldt, among others, and with the university Humboldt founded in Berlin -"which quickly became a model for the universities of the world" (Lloyd-Jones, op. cit.,p. x) -, drew its inspiration from "the glory that was Greece" rather than from Rome. See Butler 1935. 10 Cf. Percival 1982:226, 231 n.21. Unsurprisingly, no subsequent development, from the Port-Royal grammar to The logical structure of linguistic theory, has made any dent among Lebrixa's heirs.For what one of the most prominent has to say about the "gramáticos nefastos" (by what he means "nefastos gramáticos"), see Rico 1978, in particular p. 10.


141

philology, a daring one (the demonstration that a notorius 8th century document, the so-called Donation of Constatine in which the Emperor conveys the entire Western empire to the Church, was a forgery). 11 Valla was also one of the earliest philologists to deprecate and show contempt towards the attempts at rational inquiry of the medieval logicians and grammarians, which in his view were not familiar enough with the classical authors and taught barbarous Latin. The first of Valla's outbursts against medieval grammar and lexicography occurs precisely in his Elegantiae (preface to the second book), a rethorical work much admired by Lebrixa and apparently the most immediate source of some of his ideas, in particular his much quoted statement about language being acompanion of empire, which I referred to earlier. 12 Lebrixa is also taking a leaf from Valla's book when he sees himself engaged in a struggle against the Spanish "barbarians" (those incapable of writing Ciceronian prose), some professors of the University of Salamanca among them (cf. Rico 1978). Like in Priscian's compilation (Percival 1987:67), in L e b r i x a 's grammar (IV:v), a "barbarism" is an error in writing or pronunciation, to be contrasted with the errors in syntax called "solecisms" (a remarkable contrast). Anyone insufficiently unacquainted with the style and diction of the classical Latin authors was a barbarian for Lebrixa and his fellow humanists. 1 3 In other words, Lebrixa militated among those "defenders of the text" (as a very recent book calls them) who openly opposed and tried to supplant the medieval tradition of the trivium, that is, the study of logic, grammar and rhetoric (where rhetoric, in the nature of things, played second fiddle in the best moments of this tradition). 14 This undermining of logic and 11 For a recent brief review of the record of dishonesty and deception of Western scholars, see Grafton 1990. On Valla, seeKroll 1928, pp. 93ff., where it is emphasized that the "prototype" of the "humanist" is the ancient sophist, "humanism" in this sense being associated with hollow rethorical exercises and stylistic devices learned in Cicero (in opposition to the "barbarous" Latin of the scholastic period), the reason why "the foundations of modern philosophy cannot be found in these circles, but away from them." 12 Cf. Gonzalez Llubera 1927, Asensio 1960. See also Percival 1976a. 13 Their objection to scholasticism, and to medieval logic in particular, on the part of the classical scholars responsible for "the first blow to the prestige of logic", "was not that it was false in any details, but rather that it was barbarous in styleand unattractive in content by contrast with the rediscovered literature of antiquity" (Kneale & Kneale 1962:300). Are presentative reiteration of traditional humanist ridicule ofthe strange language and behavior of the logicians of the periodis Juan Luis Vives' diatribe In pseudodialecticos (1520). Cf.Fantazzi (1979), Guerlac (1979). 14 According to Percival (1975:233), the peculiarity of the southern tradition to which Valla and Lebrixa belong was that "it was oriented towards rhetoric rather than dialectic, rhetoric in this instance being not the art of forensic eloquence but the technique of written composition, or the ars dictandi, as it was called in those days." For Padley (1985:3), this distinction "between a logic-chopping North and a rhetorically orientated South" is indeed a valid one.

142

OTERO

grammar (reflected in the current sense of "trivial"), in my view one of the most pernicious legacies of pre-Renaissance humanism, is of course at the originof the split between the study of the language system and the study of the sacred or non-sacred (including literary) texts,which again is still very much with us (cf. Grafton 1991). If by now you are harboring the nagging suspicion that you have known Valla and Lebrixa since the time you were a student and haven't been able to get too far away from them in all these years (they might even have offices next to yours, or not far down the hall), I will be the last one to suspect that you are hallucinating. Like all the medieval study of language up to his time,Lebrixa's was based on Priscian (early 6th century), and also on Donatus (4th century), second only to Priscian in reputation (his "catechetically arranged manual" is "probably the most widely used elementary grammar textbook of all time" (Percival 1986:24).They differ only on several points of detail and for the most part show little originality. Priscian, perhaps the most representative Latin grammarian, was a native of the area we now call Morocco who taught Latin grammar in the predominantly Greek-speaking city of Constantinople, where he compiled his monumental Latin grammar, Institutio de arte grammatica, the most comprehensive work of its kind produced in antiquity (18 books running to almost one thousand pages), some time before the year 526, that is, a millenium before Lebrixa died, and "during most of that time it held the field unchallenged" (Percival 1987:65); in fact, it is said to have served as "the foundation of Latin teaching" up to the present day (Robbins 1990:70). Priscian's professed aim was to achieve a synthesis of Greek and Latin grammatical doctrine, but in some respects his work is virtually a translation from Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd century), which was thoroughly Alexandrian. Apollonius in turn followed Dionysius Thrax (c. 100 B.C.), "who is credited with the authorship of the first surviving explicit description of the Greek language", "regarded as definitive"; it "runs to fifteen printed pages and twenty five sections, and comprises a summary account of the structure of Greek". To this day "almost every textbook of English grammar bears evidence of a debt to Thrax", who, as a true Alexandrian, took grammar to be "the practical knowledge of the general usages of poets and prose writers" and "appreciation of literary composition" to be "the noblest part of grammar" (Robins 1990:3436). His teacher, the grammarian Aristarchus (2nd century B.C.), one of the most famous Alexandrians, probably held similar views.

This of course is inapplicable tothe "great Arnauld", co-author of both the Grammaire and the Logique of Port-Royal, which could be taken to be a 17th century update of the best tradition of the trivium.

EROM LEBRIXA'S GRAMMAR TO CARTESIAN LANGUAGE THEORY

143

The most cursory examination of Lebrixa's grammar within the Alexandrian tradition shows that it has little new to offer, and in more than one way represents a considerable cultural regression, in particular with respect to the "Golden Age of Hebrew grammar" in medieval Spain, for example in the work of David Kimhi, who lived about 1160-1235 (see W. Chomsky 1952), that is, almost exactly three centuries before Lebrixa. Following the literary critic Quintilian (1st century), Lebrixa distinguishes two types of grammar, of which one is to expound the poets and authors that we are to imitate, and the other to defend usage from corruption. The second type, the one he is concerned with, is in turn divided in four parts ("books"), following the traditional usage: orthography, prosody (i.e., rudimentary metrics), "etimology" (i.e., rudimentary morphology) and syntax. (In his grammar, these four parts are followed by apart for foreign students). Each part consists of an array of data, often not very well organized. In the part on syntax there is no syntax to speak of; the last chapter, for example, is an enumeration of over 50 very diverse "figures" having little to do with syntax, with examples (among the terms that are still familiar are "anaphora", which for Lebrixa means "word repetition", as when in poetry "we begin many lines with the same word"; "metaphora", which is "transfomation of a thing in another", as in he is a lion; and "metonymy", which is "when we put the instrument for the thing"). What Lebrixa has to say about "etymology" is far more to the point. In fact, he may have made an original contribution (IIIxi; V:vi,ix), since so far as I know he is the first student of Romance to realize that two tense subparadigms (e.g., amare,..., amaria,...) are the result of merger of the infinitive form with a following appropriate form of the present or imperfect of the auxiliary aver to have' (here he even gives something of an argument for his conclusion). A less impressive innovation is that in his Spanish grammar he enumerates ten parts of speech, in contrast with the eight found in Priscian and in many writings on grammar before an after him (including Lebrixa's Latin writings). Lebrixa drops interjection and adds article, gerund and what he calls "the infinitive participial noun" (IIIxiiii), his name for the past participle which doesn't show agreement, as in ha amado. In his parts of speech doctrine Lebrixa shows no awareness of the centrality of a distinction which can be traced back to Plato ("perhaps the first to take [grammar] seriously"). The great philosopher recognized two major components of the sentence (logos): a nominal and a verbal component (onoma and rhe:ma), a fundamental dichotomy which "remained the primary grammatical distinction underlying syntactic analysis and word classification in all future linguistic description" (Robins 1990:30). With some interpretive license, Plato's distinction could be related to the features [+/-N,+/-V] first

144

OTERO

proposed in 1969, or to the Aristotelian distinction subject/predicate, which now we know is right for natural language, and in this sense superior to the analysis proposed by Frege a century ago, as Chomsky has repeatedly emphasized. 1 5 Nor is Lebrixa up to the level of Aristotle, who added only one part of speech to the two proposed by Plato, thus preserving the fundamental primary distinction, which is subsequently lost in the Western tradition until Sanctius recovers it, perhaps with the help of Semitic sources. 1 6 More generally, Lebrixa's grammar represents an inordinate cultural regression when measured against two Aristotelian ideas which are as alive today as twenty-odd centuries ago: the conceptual difference between knowledge and use of knowledge (otherwise known as the competence/performance distinction— Chomsky 1966:28) and the conception of language as a form with a meaning (Chomsky 1980:61), which reappeared over two millenia later under the guise of the "signifier" and the "signified". Perhaps Lebrixa's greatest concern was the regulation of the Spanish orthography (fifteen years later he was to write a treatise proposing a far reaching reform of Spanish spelling). 1 7 It could be argued that the views he advanced in this area are in a number of ways more adequate than the ones prevailing today (the outcome of successive counter reforms spearheaded by the Spanish Academy). Perhaps another important contribution he made to what we now call phonetics should be mentioned here, although it is found in his Latin writings on Latin pronunciation, the most detailed of which was published in 1503: It was Lebrixa, not Erasmus of Rotterdam, who discovered the so-called Erasmian pronunciation of Latin. 18 However, the most important Spanish contribution to the study of Latin grammar was to come from a scholar much less appreciated by his countrymen in the course of the centuries, in particular by the so-called "Saint Inquisition". 1 9 I am referring to Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, also known

15 Lack of familiarity with this result invalidates at least partof the critique of Chomsky 1966 in Brekle 1969. 16 Cf. W. Chomsky 1952:10; Fischer 1962. Outside of the study ofgrammar it had already been recovered by the medieval logicians,who also "posit only two parts of speech, viz. noun and verb,calling the others 'syncategoremata' ". Formal logic was for them "a theory of syncategorematic expressions" (Bochenski 1961:153,156f), which is not a bad definition of logical form, attained many centuries before the study of language reached the conclusion that logical form is one of the two (interface) levels of representation. 17 It is reprinted in Gonzalez Llubera 1926. 18 The reference is to De vi ac potestate litterarum de queillarum falsa prolatione (Salamanca, 1503). See Percival 1982,1986 (cf. Quilis 1990:54f.); Bywater 1908. 19 Menéndez y Pelayo (1947:Epilogo, III) described him as "nombre de espiritu vivo, arrojado e independiente, enemigo de la autoridad y de la tradición", and believed that the Inquisition


145

as el Brocense and as Sanctius (Brocensis), the Latinized form of his name. Although Sánchez was born the year after Lebrixa's died, they were far apart in terms of cultural development (no likelihood of metempsychosis here). A hint of the difference comes from el Brocense's attitude towards Valla. Not only does he not share Lebrixa's admiration for Valla, but Valla is perhaps the author Sánchez most sharply disagrees with. It is true that his assessment of Valla's work appears to have evolved in the 15 years which intervene between the two editions of his celebrated Minerva. A difference in their subtitles already points to what may be a drastic change. In the 1562 edition the word elegantia, reminiscent of the title of Valla's famous book, is conjoined with the crucial term causis "causes" {causis et elegantia), but in the definitive, 1587 edition, elegantia is dropped, and the kinship with and indebtedness to the Elder Scaliger, which Sánchez is very explicit about, is thereby enhanced. 20 The term causis itself, which Sánchez takes from Scaliger, is another hint to el Brocense's intellectual ancestry, since it is immediately associated with Aristotle, considered one of the greatest philosophers in el Brocense's time. 2 1 On the very first page of his book Sanchez rejects, as pernicious, the "false opinion" that in the Latin language there are no "causes" to explore in depth. Thus, Sánchez' goal is not totally alien to the tradition of rational inquiry. His critical attitude towards prevailing opinion is also well-known, a reason why he was tried twice by the Inquisition. 22 Even during his second trial, when he was 77, he didn't shrink from proclaiming, as he had done many times before, that he would not accept conclusions drawn without evidence or argumentation, and reminded the inquisitors that Euclid and other mathematicians do not expect to be believed if their arguments are not persuasive. 2 3 No wonder Sánchez failed

always treated him with great "benignidad" and "hubiera acabado por absolverle, recomendandole mas prudencia y recato en hablar" were it not that his death intervened. 20 On the 1562 edition and the differences between the two, see Liano (1971), Estai de Fuentes (1975, 1981); on Julius Caesar Scaliger see now Jensen 1990. Jensen has little to say onSanctius (cf. p. 161 n. 9). 21 Sánchez has been described as strongly anti-Aristotelian, no doubt because of his sharp criticisms of some Aristotelian doctrines, but the description is at the very least misleading.This is not to say that Sanchez would have agreed with Leibniz,"one of the greatest logicians of all time" (Bochenski 1961:258)and fully within the philosophical tradition (as Sánchez wasnot), that Aristotle's theory of the syllogism is "one of the most beautiful discoveries of the human spirit" (Kneale & Kneale1962:322). 22 See Sahlin 1928:12-13. On the 1562 edition and the differences between the two, see Liano (1971), Estai de Fuentes (1975, 1981); on Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484-1558), see now Jensen 1990. Jensen has little to say on Sanctius (cf. p. 161 n.9). 23 This brings to mind Staal's paper (reprinted in Staal 1988)—one in its class—on Euclid and Pa:nini.

146

OTERO

to endear the people so readily endeared by Lebrixa (cf. Otero 1970 and references therein). The foregoing remarks are meant to give just something of the flavor of the contrast between the two best known Spanish students of language prior to the publication of the Port-Royal grammar and logic, which appeared in 1660 and 1662, respectively,that is, three crucial quarters of a century after the second Minerva —crucial because Galileo was only 23 when the second edition of Sanchez' book was published, and Sanchez' book was already 9 years old when Descartes was born. It follows that if it is true that there was a Galilean revolution and a related Cartesian revolution, these simple observations about the dates should be enough to settle the question whether Cartesian linguistics really begins with the Minerva, as some careless readers of Chomsky's 1966 book on the topic have claimed. Only a scholar of the Valla variety, unfamiliar with the Galilean style of investigation and its application to the study of language in the mid 20th century, will be tempted to "rehabilitate" Sanctius.24 It should be fairly clear by now (a quarter of a century after Chomsky's Language and Mind) that what defines a science for Descartes (who in this respect closely follows in the footsteps of Galileo) is the problem of explanation, which is precisely what the "scientific revolution" of the 17th century, that unique development in the history of civilization, is all about. In the case of language, this problem is sometimes called the logical problem of language acquisition. It is this problem that any variety of Cartesian linguistics worthy of the name is supposed to at least identify, if not address. The universal character of linguistic structure—which was no secret for the medieval grammarians25—or the postulation of transformations or principles of sentence interpretation are not sufficient requirements for a grammar to qualify as Cartesian, contrary to what the derogators of Chomsky's 1966 "chapter in the history of rationalist thought" take for granted. Cartesian linguistics (more generally, Cartesian psychology) is just a historically-oriented label for a specific natural science (or cluster of natural sciences in the case of psychology), as Galilean mechanics (more generally, Galilean physics) is the historically-oriented label for a specific natural science or cluster of sciences. These sciences are (redundantly) called Galilean and Cartesian because Galileo and Descartes were the first modern scientists in the fields of physics and 24

The literature on the topic begins with Lakoff 1969 (see Chomsky 1973). The most sustained efforts to date are those byClerico (1977, 1982) and Breva-Claramonte (1983, 1986). See also Michelena 1974 and Yllera 1983. Cf. Percival 1976b. (Stefanini 1978 was not available to me.) 25 See Chomsky 1966, n. 101. Cf. the silly remarks in Malmbergl977, pp. 45-46, who manages to confuse several basic notions ina single paragraph.


147

psychology, respectively.The assumption is that before the emergence of the "Galilean style" there had never been a modern natural science, hence no Galilean mechanics and no Cartesian linguistics. To qualify as Cartesian, then, a theory of language has to at least aspire to explanatory adequacy, which in Cartesian terms means that it has to be "mentalistic". Since an empiricist theory of language is ipso facto non-Cartesian, even the most sophisticated scholastic grammars are automatically disqualified.26 Does Sánchez fare better than his predecessors on this score? To the best of my knowledge, the question has never been properly posed, let alone answered, and space limitations do not allow me to go into it here,but a reasonable guess is that the answer is, No. These assumptions, like all others, may of course be wrong, and they are certainly open to challenge. My point is that in any case they will have to be addressed by anyone who attempts to challenge them—for example, by anyone who attempts to show that Cartesian linguistics as just defined begins with the revised (1587) edition of the Minerva. Pronouncements about the "rehabilitation" of Sanctius, even very loud ones, are of no help. An indication that the humanities are still at the level of Valla or Lebrixa is that, so far as I know, not a single "rehabilitator" of Sánchez has bothered to address this basic question. Like Valla and Lebrixa, some students of Sánchez appear to believe that what they say, goes, simply because they say it with blind conviction. (The scholastic logicians used to say that an ass which persists in saying "no" can always prevail over Saint Augustine's sophistication.) To go into a detailed examination of the various "rehabilitations" would take us too far afield, but so far as I can see, they all reduce to a few gross misunderstandings. It is, however, only fair to say that the "rehabilitation" of the Brocense is perhaps the least absurd attempt at proving Chomsky wrong, since no one denies that he is an acknowledged precursor of at least one of the Port-Royal grammarians and there is much about the Minerva we cannot be sure about. That of course doesn't suffice to show that this book is the first one in the tradition of Cartesian linguistics, and that the Port-Royal Grammaire and Logique (the conjunction is crucial) are just more of the same. What could perhaps be plausibly argued is that the Port-Royal grammarians do not qualify as Cartesian linguists either. The reason is that the Port-Royal proposals do not appear to go beyond common sense. If this is correct, they are more like Ptolemy's cosmology than like Galileo's cosmology. In other words, they are just as wrong as Cartesian contact mechanics was.There is nothing surpring here. A commonsensical view "it's done its work when it tells us that 26

Cf. Bursill-Hall (1975). Recall the scholastic saying, wrongly attributed to Aristotle, who was a far more reasonable empiricist: Nihil is in intellectu quin prius fuerit in sensu.Cf. Koyre (1944).

148

OTERO

the sun sets, not that motion is relativistic", as Chomsky has recently put it (letter of Jan 30,1992). From this perspective it is interesting to note that the fact that there is an enormous gap between the highest point in the tradition initiated by the PortRoyal grammar and the language theory of the mid 1950s is not seriously discussed by Chomsky'scritics—or in the 1966 monograph that so exercised them. Thus, what is perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of Chomsky's book failed to elicit substantial comments. On the other hand, there has been much discussion of irrelevant or insignificant matters. In some cases the level of irresponsibility exhibited defies comment, as when the author of the monumental Logical structure of linguistic theory and of the first fundamental papers on mathematical (in the sense of algebraic) linguistics, which were only possible after years of sustained study of language with the most sophisticated intellectual tools available, is taken to task for discussing questions he had thoroughly investigated by people with hardly any level of literacy in the field who evidently didn't make an effort to understand even the most immediately graspable aspects of the book. One is reminded of Leibniz' note of 1715 against Locke's depreciation of formal logic: Lockius aliique qui sper nunt non intelligunt (Kneale & Kneale 1962:322).27 Since among the alternatives offered to Chomsky's history of Cartesian linguistics, the claims about Sánchez are probably the least extravagant ones— far less extravagant that the claims about Locke or Condillac, for example— there is no reason to take the others very seriously. They all miss the point, some more grossly than others. In particular, they fail to appreciate Chomsky's stipulation about his use of the term "Cartesian linguistics" (1966:note 3). As he points out, it has been a common place for years that the Port-Royal theory has Cartesian origins. It is also clear that the Cartesian framework is to be associated with Arnauld rather than with Lancelot, who is the one clearly indebted to Sanchez,28 Chomsky also makes it clear that he is concerned "not 27

For more or less off-the-mark critiques of Chomsky's interpretation of the Port-Royal tradition (Chomsky 1964, 1965,1966, 1968), see Hall 1969, Lakoff 1969, Miel 1969, Salmon 1969,Uitti 1969, Aarsleff 1970, Percival 1972, Coseriu 1975, Leppinl977, Joly 1977, Bouveresse 1979, Herculano de Carvalho 1984,among others (even sympathetic critics managed to go astray-cf.Harman (1968), Zimmer (1968), Torrego (1972)). Completely on target are those by Kampf (1967) and Bracken (1970). Helpful andoften illuminating critiques of some critiques are Bracken(1972), on Aarsleff diatribe, and Andrews (1979), on Aarsleff s,Lakoffs, Coseriu's and Hall's . See also Dieltjens (1971:V),Webelhuth (1986:111). 28 Both Sanchez and Lancelot appear to belong to the grammatical tradition concerned with explaining seeming obscurities in classical authors, as Chomsky (1968:I) suggests with respect to Sanctius (something that they have in common with Lebrixa, although Lebnxa's primary concern in the 1492 grammar is "correct usage"). Even Padley (1976:214) admits that "on this point Chomsky's view of Sanctius is not completely astray". Cf.Rico (1978:132) for


149

with the transmission of certain ideas and doctrines, but with their content and, ultimately, their contemporary significance". This is precisely what makes his "chapter in the history of rationalist thought" a unique or nearly unique and hard-to-match contribution. Some might object to the preceding remarks on the grounds that they reflect a way of looking at the past from the vantage point of the present, in terms of the current level of understanding. But such an objection would have force if there was something illegitimate in such an approach. I submit that the term "intellectual history" (to which the "history of linguistics" presumably belongs) can be understood in at least two very different ways. In other words, there are at least two very different types of historiography.29 One type, no doubt the most successful by the criteria of evolutionary success (i.e. proliferation), takes historiography to be the chronicle of a particular period or periods with the primary aim of reconstructing the events as they were experienced by the participants. This is obviously an unattainable goal, since the historian has no way of shedding off the feathers of his particular cultural level. All historiography is and can only be, by definition, retrospective. We should be clear about this. The difference between the two approaches is not that one looks at the past through the eyes of the present and the other one does not. Both approaches are essentially retrospective (let's not kid ourselves). The difference is to be found in what historiographers take to be the current legacy of the past and in what they are looking for and attempting to do. If the goal of the historiographer is to reconstruct the past "as it really was", that is, as it appears, on the surface, to have been for the people who were then alive, we may say, to have a way of referring to what he or she does, that he is engaged in writing antiquarian historiography.30 The dictionary definition of a contrary view, far more "amusing" than the one he dismisses without a shred of an argument, even though he is well aware that Sánchez was a professor of rhetoric who wrote extensive commentaries on many authors (Horace, Ovid, Virgil among them), including Spanish ones (see Gallego Morell 1972:265f. and Sánchez Salor & Chaparro Gómez, eds., 1984). See also Sahlin (1928). It is even more clear that, in sharp contrast with Sánchez, Amauld and Nicole, two major figures of the Port-Royal movement (which Lancelot was not), "have no respect for Ramus" (Kneale and Kneale 1962:315). Furthermore, "in the clash between Aristotelianism and the new science" (loc. cit.), the sympathies of the Port-Royal logicians are all for natural science. It has also been claimed that they "follow closely what Descartes says of ideas (e.g. his account of innate ideas)" (op. cit., 316), contrary to what has been asserted without evidence or argument. 2 9 This topic is also discussed, in relation with the receptionof generative grammar, in Otero (1991:45ff.). 30 It should be recalled that in The birth of tragedy (1872) —which, incidentally, Wilamowitz "assailed in a pamphlet of extreme violence", as his English translator reminds us (p. xii)—, Nietzsche "attacks scholars for assuming that the ancients were in general like themselves; the

150

OTERO

antiquarian is "one that studies antiquities" (relics of earlier periods), including of course those that are antiquated (obsolete, old-fashioned or outmoded). The second type of historiography, in contrast, is concerned with piecing together a particular line or lines of intellectual development, so it may be called developmental. The historiographer engaged in investigating the course of cultural development with a view toward determining what is of enduring value —which, needless to say, is only possible from the vantage point of a more advanced level of understanding—is not unlike an art lover who is interested in antiques as achievements of an earlier period which haven't lost their worth.31 Except that in this case the art lover is also a sequencer trying to uncover a contoured succession of related advances in the confusing and seemingly random record of hits and misses. That's why this kind of inquiry is not like the easy job of a recorder or an uncertified notary public but rather like the efforts of an uncertifiable Sherlock Holmes-like detective searching for answers that are far from readily accessible. Needless to say, this uncertifiable detective of the achievements of the past attempts to write not just a history of human experiences and cultural changes but a history of real advances—advances which in his scale are and can only be absolute rather than relative to time and place. It can readily be granted that the actual historical process will always be far more complex than any schematic rendition of it—as the conversations of everyday life are far more complex than any imaginable grammar—simply because any aspect of reality is always more convoluted and contorted than the best-conceived non-superficial interpretation of it. This, however, is not incompatible with success in explanation. Even if the apple that you catch in the air fails to behave like the one that reaches the ground unimpeded, even if it is not possible to calculate the path of a falling feather, one does not go on to conclude that the law of gravitation is a figment of people's imaginations and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. What doesn't deserve to be taken seriously is the dictum that "a period can only be studied in its own terms". For one thing, it is no improvement over the dictum that "every language must be studied in its own terms". It goes without saying that the job of the antiquarian and the job of the developmental historian are not equally demanding, which is why

most important thing for a scholar, and the hardest, he says, is to enter into the life of antiquity in imagination and to feel the difference between the ancients and ourselves" (loc. cit.) 31 See the transcription of the 1971 Dutch television broadcast of a confrontation between Chomsky and Foucault in Elders, ed.(1974), p. 143.


151

developmental historians are so rare. A notary doesn't have to be a scientist in order to attest to the facts notaries attest to. In contrast, only the appropriate kind of scientist is capable of reconstructing the course of development of a particular science, of spotting a revolutionary new idea and tracing its course from the point of its emergence to its most elaborate form, perhaps relating it to other relevant ideas in the process. Put another way, developmental history can only be attempted with relative success by someone who is completely up-to-date, if one is to make sure that there is little chance that an idea already discarded may be unwittingly taken for something valuable, or even new. It is for this reason that the history of cultural development can only be what over half a century ago was called "storia a ritroso" (history reversed), that is, history with the dull parts left out (if I may adapt Alfred Hitchcock's definition of a good movie).32 This is particularly true when one attempts to trace particular advances to their more or less remote roots with the benefit of hindsight, as in the type of historiography I am advocating. In other words (I apologize for my insistence, but I am all too aware of how difficult it is to overcome certain limitations), it is plain that the reconstruction of the course of historical advances (in the case at hand, intellectual advances) is only possible from the vantage point of the present, that is, of the current level ofunderstanding. This is what the term "retrojective" in my title refers to. Retrojective historiography is, in my view, a legitimate type of historiography, like projective geometry is a legitimate type of geometry, although of course not the only type. It should perhaps be added that I haven't the slightest desire to stop people from writing other types of historiography, even misguided historiography. I'm just trying to make a little room for what I'm calling retrojective historiography. My next truism is no deeper, but it bears repetition: The most that can be expected of empirical inquiry is successive approximations to the truth (a familiar contingency—familiar at least since the 17th century). It follows then that intellectual history, which is always retrospective, always relative to current understanding, is also unavoidably tentative. Although our chances of being fair to the achievements of the past improve as our level of understanding rises, our conclusions will never be absolutely beyond question. Who would expect something else? A couple of examples of this retrojective character of intellectual history might be helpful at this point. Take something nice and easy like the universe and a tiny part of it known as planet earth. Although as long ago as 340 B.C. Aristotle was able to put forward two strong arguments for believing that the 32

The reference is to the view of Professor Killaloe, a character in Giovanni Papini's Gog (see the English translation, published by Harcourt, Brace and Co. in 1931, pp. 47ff.).

152

OTERO

earth was a round sphere rather than a flat plate (something rather obvious twenty some centuries later from a high flying plane at dusk), neither he nor any of his contemporaries had any inkling that there is more to the universe than meets the eye when you look up in a clear night from a mountain top. Most ancient Greeks (the known exception is Aristarchus of Samos), who knew as much as we know about some of the questions that continue to be most crucial, had also little doubt that the earth stood still at the center of everything there is (which they thought it was not much), that the stars were fixed to the globe of the heavens, and that the sun, the moon, and the five planets known at the time moved in circular orbits about the earth. (Why circular? Because circular motion is the most perfect, as every mystic knew centuries ago.) These ideas were not unreasonable at that stage of cultural development. Just think that in this day and age celestial cartographers continue to draw their maps as if the stars were fixed to the globe of the heavens. Now let's try to imaging how things would have looked if in fact the sun had been circling the earth (as Wittgenstein is supposed to have quipped). The point is that it would look exactly the same. To come up with a better approximation to the truth, it was necessary to leap from the level of common sense understanding—already well above the level of sensual perception (cf. Northrop 1947:111)—to the level of theoretical imagination. It comes then as no surprise that the crudest first approximation went unchallenged for some 14 centuries more. We had to wait some 18 centuries before people began to take a better alternative seriously. We refer to this leap in understanding as the Copernican revolution. It is fairly easy to see that the difference in truth value between the two theories will not be lost on a detective of intellectual history focusing on the emergence of new ideas, and that such a detective will not be much inclined to give equal time to a geocentric theory, irreversibly consigned to the dust bin of history (like the heliocentric theory beyond our celestial neighborhood, even within our galaxy, as we now know).What is not so easy to understand is that exactly the same standard is to be applied to the most fundamental question in the study of language: Is language learned, as most Greeks believed (the counterpart to Aristarchus of Samos in this case was Plato), or does it grow like our arms and legs, as the Copernican Galileo of the cognitive sciences has argued? The question itself seems to be out of reach for the run-of-the-mill antiquarian, who might even fail to grasp the force of the analogy with the Copernican revolution. Why is this simple point so often lost on those who write about the historical course of the study of language? I could speculate, but I won't. Instead I will suggest a rule of thumb one can apply to many writings self-defined as contributions to the history of linguistics: The more completely

EROM LEBRIXA'S GRAMMAR TO CARTESIAN LANGUAGE THEORY

153

the simple point just made is missed, the more vociferous, self-righteous and arrogant the antiquarian. This rule works remarkably well in a number of cases. My second example perhaps hits closer to home (cf. Gamow 1961:116f.). Reasoning on the basis of the rudimentary knowledge available at the time, a contemporary of Aristarchus of Samos known as Democritus had the insight, astonishing even 23 centuries later, that no matter how homogeneous a given substance may look, it must be assumed to be formed by a large number of separate small particles that he called "atoms", meaning "indivisibles", these atoms differing in quantity, but not quality, from substance to substance. In Democritus's view, all material things are composed of the same atoms. In contrast, his contemporary Empedocles assumed that there were four types of atoms corresponding to four readily observable substances (allegedly elementary): water, air, fire and stone. This theory, popularized in Aristotle's writings, was overwhelmingly dominant century after century among experimenters. It is well known that some alchemists of the Middle Ages took for granted that shining gold contained more fire than duller metals and apparently spent much of their life over their smoky hearths trying to make "synthetic gold" by adding fire to cheaper metals—a feat which may not be without analogue in the annals of linguistics. (I leave this as an exercise.) We now know that one of the four "atoms" postulated by Empedocles as elementary, the "fire atom", does not exist at all, and that the other three are far from elementary: water molecules are formed from hydrogen and oxygen atoms, air is a mixture of several different gases, and rocks (like sentences) have a very complex composition involving a great many different elements. The best approximation to the truth we have so far is that there exist in nature not four but at least 106 chemical elements, which happen to be essentially alike. 33 Does this mean that we have returned to Democritus, as a historian fascinated by precursors and continuities may be prone to conclude? Not at all. More important than the measure of continuity one may find, which in this case reduces to the basic insight —something of course far from neglible— is the enormous progress made since Democritus, the new perspectives opened up, in some cases "reinterpreting what was previously rejected".34 Again, it goes without saying that for anyone trying to rationally reconstruct the intellectual history of just the periodic table, or some other not disconfirmed 33

As is well known, some of the elements discovered in our century were made artificially for the first time only a generation ago in a Berkeley laboratory, the most familiar of them being plutonium, the atom which changed the course of human history almost overnight, something presumably without antecedent even for those capable of finding "continuities" all along the way. 34 Chomsky (1979:176); compare Chomsky (1985:5), quoted below.

154

OTERO

subtheory of chemistry, there is no need to waste any time chronicling the lack of insight of Empedocles and his numerous admirers across the centuries, let alone the misguided experiments of the alchemists during the Dark Ages of the discipline. The Empedoclean story belongs in the chronicle of human folly or in the register of human misbeliefs, not in a history of the successive emergence of enduring ideas, some of which, even old ones, may very well be still alive among up-to-date researchers. The historiography of the advances in the study of language should be no exception. The fact that it tends to be—nothing to be proud of or write home about —simply shows that it still has to go beyond its infancy, something quite understandable at a time in which typical practitioners have not been much exposed to anything that resembles rational inquiry, let alone scientific rational inquiry. It is a truism that the theory of language itself has some distance to go, but however much is understood about language at a particular level of development has not been of much interest to a number of historians of linguistics. A sample quote by an antiquarian about another who is even further removed from current linguistic research is perhaps enough in this context. According to her, the particular scholar he was reviewing "shows no interest in the technical linguistics that most nearly resembles natural science in its aims and methods". This is a remarkable and most appropriate observation about the book she is reviewing, hence it stands out in the history of linguistics as usually practiced. Admiration, then, may be inorder. But let's not be rash. Let's read on. A couple of paragraphs later she goes on to conclude that the scholarship of the author she is reviewing is "impeccable". That's right, "impeccable". Why? Because of "his lengthy footnotes" and because "the reader cannot fail to be impressed by his breath of compass and his meticulous attention to detail".35 35

See Posner's 1982 review of Aarsleff (1982), a book where the discipline hits some of its most abysmal points (see Bracken 1972-- and preface to Bracken 1984, where the 1972 paper is reprinted-, Andrews 1979, Webelhuth 1986:111 n. 2; cf. also Sweet 1989, Joseph 1990 on Aarsleff Introduction to Heath 1988). To give just a little idea of what we are dealing with: It doesn't take asmall amount of effrontery to condemn Chomsky (falsely), in the hysterical selfrighteous diatribe originally published in Language in 1970, for ignoring Renaissance and other sources of universal grammar in Cartesian linguistics, published in 1966,when in his book The study of language in England, 1780-1860,published in 1967, Aarsleff refers throughout to universal grammar as strictly Cartesian, not even mentioning the quite obvious Renaissance and other sources mentioned by Chomsky (1966:n. 67; cf. n. 101). If it is true that "Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics undoubtedly did more than any other book to create interest in the history of linguistics", as Aarsleff himself admitted in the preface to the 1983 reprint of his book (p. xii;cf. Hymes, ed., 1974:8), one can only guess what the impact of Chomsky's monograph would have been if "natural historians" of the Aarsleff type were a thing of the Lebrixian past (as they are among logicians, for example), or if at least they were capable of a higher intellectual and moral level. Misrepresentation simply to protect the turf falls pretty low even by the standards of the humanities.


155

There you have it: One may be ready to adjudicate differences analogous to those between Democritus and Empedocles without the benefit of an undergraduate course in linguistics, let alone a modicum of literacy in current, that is, up-to-date language theory and analysis, because of one's "distaste for technical linguistics"; one may "not allow enough scope for the role of oral transmission in the communication of ideas from one generation to the next"; moreover, one may be totally dishonest and, for example, specifically guilty of falsely claiming that a particular book does not mention earlier influences (when it is one's own book, published a year later, that fails to mention those influences), but still one's long footnotes and one's attention to detail may amply make up for all that. What is one to say of a discipline with those standards? At least this much: This unfortunate state of affairs can be traced to the irrational tradition of which Lebrixa was very much a part. Here we have to dispel a common and persistent misapprehension of some disparagers of the very idea of cultural development who shrink from the responsibility of assessing the relative merits of contrasting fundamental hypotheses such as geocentrism and heliocentrism, empiricism and rationalism, and others found in the course of cultural development. Indeed, an outstanding historian of linguistics has written that "it is tempting, and flattering to one's contemporaries, to see the history of a science as the progressive discovery of the truth and the attainment of the right methods, something of acounterpart to what has been called 'Whig history' in political historiography".36 For him this view of history is a fallacy. Limitations of space do not allow me to examine this curious stand and to show that it is contradicted in his own work, which is among the most serious the "history of linguistics" as commonly understood has to offer. Instead, I'll try to show that,contrary to what he appears to believe, the approach he rejects is also readily applicable (and not always in a flattering way) to our contemporaries—fortunately for us, since there is no other known approach to intellectual development. The short history of generative grammar in its modern reincarnation can serve as an illustration. When one tries to reconstruct the course of development of generative grammar from the vantage point of early 1992 with the benefit of hindsight, It should perhaps be added here that the scholar who virtually pleaded with Chomsky, when they met by chance in the steps of the British Museum, to drop what he was doing and not to publish anything on the history of linguistics (cf. Saporta 1990:31) was no other than Aarsleff. Perhaps he was terrified by the thought that someone might actually find some interesting intellectual content in the little cozy corner of the world he would much prefer to have all to himself, even if he understood virtually nothing about it. This is particularly true of his writings on the origin of language. Cf. Otero (1990),particularly the remarks on Rousseau on p. 750, which can be extended to Condillac's views. 36 Robins (1990:3). The allusion is to Butterfield (1931).

156

OTERO

there is one thing that appears to standout above all others in the contour that begins to be perceptible: Until roughly a dozen years ago, generative grammar was just a sort of sophisticated (some would say, fancy) version of traditional grammar. This is perhaps one of the reasons why it was better received by traditional grammarians than by Bloomfieldian structuralists. The radical break with the achievements of the previous 25 centuries (or the previous 25 millennia) came as late as 1979. The principles-and-parameters theory appears to be something new under the sun in the sense that matters. It is true that it still uses concepts like verb and noun, but this only goes to show that some achievements of the past are real ones. Such "continuities" can be taken for granted, like a family trait. What is of special interest for the student of cultural development is the "discontinuities", for example, the fact in late 1970 a binding theory began to emerge. The next step is to ask whether the most recent work is always better than the earlier one; whether, in other words,generative grammar was at some point "temporarily diverted along 'wrong tracks' until more than usually perceptive thinkers return[ed] the subject to its 'proper' course of cumulative advance", to quote again from the same source. If the limited perspective we are beginning to gain doesn't prove to be misleading, the answer appears to be, Yes. 37 How was it diverted? For one thing, the principles-and-parameter theory was apparently wrong in betting so heavily on head government, for example, since there may be no such principle, and a nonexistent principle cannot really be the core notion of any theory. For another, the list of candidates for epiphenomena is now longer. Thus, the Projection Principle and the Theta-Criterion are as unnecessary as phrase-structure rules are, a fate that might extend even to the ECP (at least the relativized minimally and superiority cases fall out, unified, from deeper principles), and what we took to be a trace may very well be a full copy of the moved element, which is later deleted (perhaps the explanation for most, maybe all, ellipsis, a result that might have surprised Sanctius). There is more. It is probably false that English, in contrast with French, has a rule that lowers inflection (in fact, lowering appears never to be an option), and verb raising cannot involve feature changing, only feature checking. Also, there may not be "wh in situ" structures either, or (as one might expect, given the nature of the operation) "reconstruction". But even if these ideas are not the right ideas, it does not follow that they didn't carry things forward. They could still have been stepping stones towards better ideas. This can even be the case with the still-born analysis of complex adjectival constructions in the final version of the Pisa lectures. In the remarks that follow directly I rely heavily on Chomsky 1992b.


157

Suppose now we change the tune and ask, Are there innovations of the last forty years that, if anything, appear to be more secure and unchallengeable (as of today, remember?) than they have ever been—perhaps even enhanced by recent advances, if indeed they are advances? Two likely candidates seem to be X-bar theory (born in early 1967) and LF theory (which emerged, somewhat unexpectedly, only eight years later). As for the general approach, the new emphasis on economy of representations and derivations that got into high gear in 1988 can be tracedback to at least 1951 (and it was of course prefigured in the Pa:ninian tradition). The thing to note, and apparently hard to notice for some historians of linguistics, is that what is of real interest is how well an idea fares, not the identity or standing of its proponent. The fact that an insight is due to this or that researcher is not a primary fact for the developmental historiographer, contrary to what antiquarians seem to think. An honest historian is interested in discovering the best approximation to the truth, not in establishing some dogma or in worshiping some idol. Perhaps we are already in a position to raise questions about the whole brief historical course of modern generative grammar. We can ask, for example, Are there clear cases of intellectual regression? If the history of the sciences is any guide, it is not unreasonable to venture a positive answer even without looking at the record. Turning to the record we soon discover that in the minimalist research program of the early 1990s, like in the theory of the mid 1950s, there are generalized (binary) transformations, hence no level of D-structure (an allat-once level) and no level of S-structure either (or the indexes that went with it, which led to so much misunderstanding, since now indexes appear to be dispensable). And the principle of Spell Out, which in a language type may apply later than in another (in accordance with the lateness principle Procrastinate), has little in common with the rule of lexical insertion proposed in the mid 1960s, a most welcome result. The bottom line is that it is apparently possible to reduce the levels of representation to just the two interface levels, LF and PF, both of which are conceptually necessary, therefore indispensible. If these assumptions turn out to be essentially correct, it may then be reasonable to conclude that in some respects generative grammar was "temporarily diverted along 'wrong tracks'" in the mid 1960s and that it was returned "to its 'proper' course of cumulative advance" (Robins 1976:13) only over a quarter of a century later—perhaps a case of "reversion to ideas that had been abandoned and were later reconstructed in a different light" (Chomsky 1985:5). It is hardly necessary to add that this assessment is still more tentative than other assessments of this nature. As usual, only time will tell. What is obvious, and should not be lost track of, is that, contrary to what some historians of linguistics imply, generative grammar is no more exempt from the

158

OTERO

principles of developmental historiography than celestial mechanics or atomic theory are. However, if our goal is a balanced picture, the real or apparent regressions must be placed in the context of the real advances, which are hardly in question. When generative grammar finally emerged in the early 1950s, thirty some thousand years after our Cro-Magnon set early human standards, it was simply inconceivable that it could lead to something like the principles-and-parameters theory—an enormous leap forward—in just twenty-five short years. It is a fair guess that for the developmental historian of the future these will be "twentyfive years that shook the study of language" (to borrow the gist of Gamow's title), which are by now over thirty-five, and the amazing period appears to be far from over. Of particular importance is the fact that the effects of the successive waves of advance extend well beyond the center of irradiation, reaching even countries that in the past were not known for their contributions to science (see note 4). One of the obvious consequences is that today the study of language is flourishing in many places as has never flourished before. A case in point is Spain. A quick way of getting an idea of the chasm that separates Lebrixa's grammar from the best work of contemporary Spanish grammarians is to compare his few lines on an assortement of examples which have the word más in common (III:iii) to the fascinating recent paper on Spanish superlatives by Ignacio Bosque and Jose Maria Brucart, at the cutting edge of research on Spanish grammar anywhere in the world. So at least in this one respect, we have not stood still since Lebrixa's time. It could even be argued that we have reasons to be fairly pleased: Although we are 500 years closer to Lebrixa than he was to Priscian, the study of Spanish grammar can be said to be light years ahead of that miserable 1492. REFERENCES 1. Primary Sources Lebrixa, Antonio de. 1492. Gramâtica sobre la lengua castellana. Salamanca. Facsimile reprint, Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1976.(See Studies below under Walberg 1909, Gonzalez Llubera 1926, Rogerio Sanchez 1931, Galindo & Ortiz 1946, Alston 1969, Quilis 1980, 1990.) Sanctii Brocensis, Francisci. 1556. Ars dicendi. Salamanca: . 1587. Minerva seu de causis linguae Latinae. Salamanca: Matias Gastio, 1558. (See below under Sánchez Salor & Chaparro Gomez 1984.)


159

. 1562a. Verae brevesque grammatices Latinae institutiones.. Lyons, Sebastian Gryphus. . 1562b. Minerva seu de Latinae linguae causis et elegantia. Lugduni. (See below under Estai Fuentes 1975, 1981.) . 1579. Organum dialecticum et rhetoricum. Lyons. (See below under Sánchez Salor & Chaparro Gomez 1984.) Ioannes & Andreas Renaut, fratres. (Facsimile edition published by Frommann-Holzboog, StuttgartBad Cannstatt, 1986 with an Introduction by Breva-Claramonte 1986. Many subsequent editions—see 1986 facsimile, xiii-xvi.Spanish translation: Riveras Cardenas 1976; French translation: Clerico 1982.) [Arnauld, Antoine, & Lancelot, Claude.] 1660. Grammaire generale et raisonnee. By le Sieur D. T. [i.e. De Trigny, pseudonym]. Paris, Le Petit. (Slightly enlarged facsimile edition published by The Scolar Press Limited, Menston,England, 1967; facsimile of the third [1676] edition published by Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Gunther Holzboog),Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1966 — see below under Breklel966.) [Arnauld, Antoine, & Nicole, Pierre.] 1662. La logique ou l' art de penser. Paris. (Facsimile edition published by Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1965-1967 —see below under Freytag Loringhoff& Brekle, eds.) 2. Studies Aarsleff, H. 1967. The study of language in England, 1780-1860. Princeton UP. (2nd ed., with a new preface. University of Minnesota Press, 1983.) . 1970. "The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky." Language 46, 570-85. Reprinted in Aarsleff 1982, 101-119. . 1982. From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the study of language and intellectual history. University of Minnesota Press. . 1988. Introduction to Heath's translation. Adams, Robert M. 1977. Introduction and notes to Niccolo Machiavelli, The prince. New York/London: W. W. Norton &Co. (A Norton Critical Edition.) Alston, R. C , ed. 1969. Lebrija: Grammatica castellana, 1492, El orthografia castellano, 1517. Menston, Yorkshire, England: The Scholar Press Ltd. (A collection of facsimile reprints, no. 11.) Andrews, Ilse. 1979. "Some critics of Chomskyan theory reviewed." Studies in Language 3,439-52. Asensio, Eugenio. 1960. "La lengua companera del imperio." Revista de Filologia Espanola 43 [1962], 399-413.

160

OTERO

Auroux, Sylvain, Glatigny, Michel, Jolly, Andre, Nicolas, Anne, & Rosier, Irene, eds. 1984. Materiaux pour une histoire des theories linguistiques. Universite de Lille III. Bell, Aubrey F. G. 1925. Francisco Sanchez, el Brocense. Oxford University Press. Humphrey Milford. Black, Robert. 1991. "The curriculum of Italian elementary and grammar schools, 1350-1500." In Kelley & Popkin, 137-163. Bochenski, Joseph M. 1961. A history of formal logic. Translated and edited by Ivo Thomas. [Notre Dame, Ind.] University ofNotre Dame Press. (2d ed. New York, Chelsea Pub. Co., 1970.) Bouveresse, Jacques. 1979. "La linguistique cartesienne: Grandeur et decadence d'un mythe." Critique 35, 420-428. Bracken, H. M. 1970. "Chomsky's variations on a theme of Descartes." Journal of the History of Philosophy 8, 180-92. (Review of Chomsky 1966.) . 1972. "Chomsky's Cartesianism." Language Sciences 22 (Oct), 11-17. Reprinted in Bracken 1984. . 1984. Mind and language: Essays on Descartes and Chomsky. Dordrecht: Foris. Braselmann, Petra. 1991. Humanistische Grammatik und Volkssprache: zur "Gramática de la lengua castellana" von Antonio de Nebrija. Dusseldorf: Droste. Brekle, Herbert E., ed. 1966. Grammaire generale et raisonnee ou La Grammaire de Port-Royal. Edition critique presente par—. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag(Gunther Holzboog), 1966. (Tome I: Nouvelle impression enfacsimile de la troisieme edition de 1676; tome II: Variantes et annotations.) ______ 1969. "Review of Chomsky, Cartesian linguistics." Linguistische Berichte, 52-66. (Reprinted in Linguistics 49 (1969), 74-91.) Breva-Claramonte, Manuel. 1983. Sanctius' theory of language: a contribution to the history of Renaissance linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. . 1986. Introduction to reprint of the 1587 edition of Sanctius's Minerva, vii-lxxi.Bursill-Hall, G.L. 1975. In Sebeok (ed.), 179-230. Butler, E. M. 1935. The tyranny of Greece over Germany. Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted in 1958 by Beacon Press, witha new preface by the author.) Butler, R. J., ed. 1972. Cartesian studies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Butterfield, H. 1931. Whig interpretation of history. London: G. Bell and Sons.


161

Bywater, Ingram. 1908. The Erasmian pronunciation of Greek and its precursors, Jerome Alexander, Aldus Manutius, and Antonio of Lebrixa. London & Oxford: Henry Froude. Campos, Héctor & Martinez-Gil, Fernando, eds. 1991. Current studies in Spanish linguistics. Georgetown University Press. Chomsky, William. 1952. David Kimhi's Hebrew grammar (Mikhlol), systematically presented and critically annotated by —.New York: Bloch Publishing Co. Chomsky, Noam. 1955-56. The logical structure of linguistic theory. University of Chicago, 1975. (Paperback edition, 1985, with an index by Jan van Voorst.) . 1962. "Explanatory models in linguistics". ïn Nagel et al. 528-550. . 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton. . 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . 1966. Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper & Row. . 1968. Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. (Enlarged edition, 1972.) . 1973. "Chomsky replies", New York Review, July 19, p. 33. . 1979. Language and responsibility. New York: Pantheon. . 1980. Rules and representations. Columbia University Press. . 1985. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.. 1992a. Year 501: World orders old and new: Parti. Ms. MIT. . 1992b. "A minimalist program for linguistic theory." Ms. MIT. Clerico, Genevieve. 1977. "F. Sanctius: Histoire d'une rehabilitation", in Joly & Stefanini, 125-144. . ed. 1982. Francis eus Sanctius: Minerve ou les causes de la langue latine. Introduction, traduction et notes par Presses Universitaires de Lille. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1975. Leistung und Grenzen der Transformationellen Grammatik. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Dieltjens, L. 1971. Rule-governed creativity: An analysis of the concept in the work of N. Chomsky. Leuven, Belgium: ITL (Institute of Applied Linguistics). Elders, Fons, ed. 1974. Reflexive water: The basic concerns of mankind. London: Souvenir Press; Ontario, Canada: J. M.Dent & Sons. Estai Fuentes, Eduardo del. 1975. Francisco Sanchez de las Brozas: Minerva (1562). Introduction y edición de —.Universidad de Salamanca. . 1981. Minerva (1562) o de los fundamentos y elegancia de lalengua latina. Introducciön y traduction de —.Universidad de Salamanca.

162

OTERO

Fantazzi, Charles. 1979. "Vives, Juan Luis [1492-1540]." In Pseudodialécticos: a critical edition. Introduction, translation, and commentary by Charles Fantazzi. Leiden:Brill. Fischer, J. B. 1962. "The origin of tripartite division of speech in Semitic grammar'."The Jewish Quarterly Review 53 (1962-1963), 1-21. Freytag Loringhoff, Bruno Baron von, & Brekle, Herbert E., eds. 1965-1967. L'art de penser. La Logique de Port-Royal.Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Gunther Holzboog). (Tome I: Nouvelle impression en facsimile de lapremiere edition de 1662; tome II: Supplement: Presentation synoptique des variantes de texte des editions 1662-1683.Avec des annotations.) Galindo Romeo, Pascual & Ortiz Munoz, L., eds. 1946. Nebrija: Gramâtica castellana. Prólogo de J. Ibânez Martin. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Gallego Morell, Antonio, ed. 1972. Garcilaso de la Vega y sus cornentaristas. Obras complétas del poeta acompanadas de los textos întegros de los comentarios de El Brocense, Fernando de Herrera, Tamayo de Vargas y Azara. 2a. ed. Madrid:Gredos. Garcia de la Concha, Victor, ed. 1981. "Nebrija y la introduccion del Renacimiento en Espana." Actas de la III Academia Literaria Renacentista. Universidad de Salamanca. Gonzalez de la Calle, Pedro Urbano. 1923. Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas: Su vida profesional y academica. Ensayo biográfico. Madrid: Victoriano Suârez. Gonzalez Llubera, Ignacio. 1926. Nebrija: Gramatica de la lengua castellana, Muestra de la istoria de las antiguedades de Espana, Reglas de orthographia de la lengua castellana.. Edited with an introduction and notes by —. London:Humphrey Milford. . 1927. "Notas para la critica del nebrisense." Bulletin of Spanish Studies 4, 89-92. Grafton, Anthony. 1990. Forgers and critics: Creativity and duplicity in Western scholarship. Princeton University Press. . 1991. Defenders of the text: The traditions of scholarship in an age of science, 1450-1800. Harvard University Press. . & Jardine, L. 1986. From humanism to the humanities. Cambridge, MA. Grendler, Paul. 1989. Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and learning, 1300-1600. Baltimore. Guerlac, Rita, ed. 1979. Juan Luis Vives against the pseudodialecticians: A humanist attack on medieval logic.The attack on the pseudialecticians and


163

On dialectic, bookIII, v, vi, vii, from The causes of the corruption of the arts, with an appendix of related passages by Thomas More :the texts with translation, introd., and notes by Rita Guerlac. Dordrecht/Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co. Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1969. "Some recent studies on Port-Royal and Vaugelas." Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12, 207-233. Harman, Gilbert. 1968. "Review of Chomky 1966." The Philosophical Review 11, 229-235. Heath 1988. Humboldt [1836]: On language: The diversity of human languagestructure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. Translated by Peter Heath with an introduction by Hans Aarsleff. Cambridge University Press.(Texts in German Philosophy series.) Herculano de Carvalho, Jose G. 1984. Pequena contribucao a historia da linguistica: Observacoes (algo tardias) a "Linguistica cartesiana" de Noam Chomsky. Coimbra Editora. Hymes, Dell, ed. 1974. Studies in the history of linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Indiana University Press. Illich, Ivan. 1981. Shadow work. Boston/London: Marion Boyars. Jensen, Kristian. 1990. Rhetorical philosophy and philosophical grammar: Julius Caesar Scaliger's theory of language. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Joly, A. 1977. "La linguistique cartésienne: Une erreur memorable." In Joly & Stefanini (eds.), 165-200. Joly, A., & Stefanini, J., eds. 1977. La grammaire generale: Des modistes aux ideologues. Universite de Lille. Joseph, John E. 1991. "Review of Heath 19&&." Language 67, 843-51. Kamen, Henry. 1985. Inquisition and society in Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kampf, L. 1967. "Review of Chomsky 1966", College English 28, 403 Kelley, Donald R., & Popkin, Richard, eds. 1991. The shapes of knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment.. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kneale, W. C. (William Calvert) & Kneale, M. 1962. The development of logic. Oxford : Clarendon Press. (Corrected paperback ed., 1984; 11th impression, 1991.) Koyre, Alexandre. 1944. "Aristotelisme et Platonisme dans la philosophie du Moyen Age." In Gants du Ciel (Juin 1944), 75-107. Kretzmann, Normal. 1975. "Transformationalism and the Port-Royal grammar." In Rieux & Rollin, eds., 176-95.

164

OTERO

Kristeva, Julia. 1989. Language-the unknown: An introduction to linguistics. Tr. by Anne M. Menke. Columbia UniversityPress. Kroll, Wilhelm. 1928. Historia de lafilologîa clâsica. Traducida y ampliada por Pascual Galindo Romeo y Manuel Palomar Lapesa. Barcelona: Labor. (2nd ed., 1941; 3rd, revised ed.,1953.) Lakoff, R. 1969. "Review of Grammaire generale et raisonnee." Language. 45, 343-64. Leppin, Jutta. 1977. "Some observations on the Chomskian interpretation of Wilhelm von Humboldt." Archivum Linguisticum 8 (n.s.), 46-59. Liano, Jesus Ma. 1971. "La primera redacción de la Minerva." Estudios Clâsicos 15, 187-203. Malmberg, Bertil. 1977. Signes et symboles: Les bases du language humain. Paris: Picard. Menéndez Pelayo, Marcelino. 1947. Historia de los heterodoxos espanoles. Santander: Aldus. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. 1933. "El lenguaje del siglo XVI." Cruz y Raya, Sept 15. (Revised edition in Menendez Pidal 1942.) . 1942. La lengua de Cristobal Colón. Buenos Aires/México: EspasaCalpe. (Colección Austral, 280.) Michelena, Luis. 1974. "El Brocense, hoy". In Homenaje a la memoria de don Antonio Rodriguez Monino, Madrid: Castalia, 429-42. Miel, Jan. 1969. "Pascal, Port-Royal, and Cartesian linguistics." Journal of the History of Ideas 30,261-271. Nagel, E., Suppes, P. & Tarski, A., eds. 1962. Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. (Proceedings of thel960 International Congress.) Stanford University Press. Northrop, F.S.C. 1947. The logic of the sciences and the humanities. New York: Macmillan. (Cleveland, Ohio: TheWorld Publishing Co., 1959; 7th reprinting, 1967.) Otero, Carlos P. 1970. Introducción a la lingüistica transformacional: Retrospectiva de una confluencia. México:Siglo XXI. (6th revised ed., 1989.) . 1990. "The emergence of 'homo loquens' and the laws of physics." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 747-750. . 1991. "The cognitive revolution and the study of language: Looking back to see ahead." In Campos & Martinez-Gil (eds.), 3-69. Padley, G. A. 1976. Grammatical theory in western Europe, 1500-1700: The Latin tradition. Cambridge UP. . 1985. Grammatical theory in western Europe 1500-1700: Trends in vernacular grammar I. Cambridge UP.


165

Parret, H., ed. 1976. History of linguistic thought and contemporary linguistics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Percival, W. Keith. 1972. "On the non-existence of Cartesian linguistics." In Butler, ed., 137-145. . 1975. "The grammatical tradition and the rise of the vernaculars." In Sebeok (ed.), 231-276. . 1976a."Renaissance grammar: rebellion or evolution?" In Tarugi, ed., II, 73-90. . 1976b. "Deep and surface structure concepts in Renaissance and Medieval syntactic theory." In Parret (ed.), 238-53. . 1982. "Antonio de Nebrija and the dawn of modern phonetics." Res Publica Litterarum; Studies in the Classical Tradition 5, 221-32. . 1986. "The reception of Hebrew in sixteenth-century Europe: The impact of the Cabbala." In Quilis & Niederehe (eds.),21-37. . 1987. "On Priscian's syntactic theory: The Medieval perspective." In Aarsleff, Kelly & Niederehe (eds.), 65-74. Posner, Rebecca. 1982. "The scientific and the social." Times Literary Supplement, 9 July. Quilis, Antonio, ed. 1990. Antonio de Nebrija: Gramática de la lengua castellana. Edición y estudio —. Madrid: Editoral Centro de Estudios Ramon Areces. (Slightly revised thirdedition. First published in 1980.) Rico, Francisco. 1978. Nebrija frente a los bârbaros: El canon de gramáticos nefastos en las polémicas del humanismo.Universidad de Salamanca. . 1983. "El nuevo mundo de Nebrija y Colon: Notas sobre la geografia humanistica en Espana y el contexto intelectual del descubrimiento de America." In Garcia de la Concha (ed.), 157-85. Rieux, Jacques, & Rollin, Bernard E., ed. 1975. General and rational grammar: the Port-Royal grammar. The Hague:Mouton. Robins, R. H. 1976. "Some continuities and discontinuities in the history of linguistics." In Parret, ed. 13-31. . 1990. A brief history of linguistics. Third edition. London/New York: Longman.Sahlin, Gunvor. 1928. Cesar Chesnau du Marsais et son role dans l'évolution de la Grammaire generale. Paris: Presses Universitaires. Salmon, Vivian. 1969. "Review of Chomsky 1966". Journal of Linguistics 5, 165-87. (Reprinted under the title "Pre-Cartesian linguistics" in Salmon 1979, 63-85.) . 1979. The study of language in 17th-century England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Saporta, Sol. 1990. "Society, the university and language: An interview with Noam Chomsky." Journal of Critical Essays 2:2, 19-42.

166

OTERO

Sanchez Salor, Eustaquio, & Chaparro Gomez, César, eds. 1984. Sánchez de las Brozas, Obras, I. Céceres: Institución Cultural "El Brocense". Scioppius, Gasp., & Perizonni, Jac. 1761. Franc. Sanctii, Brocensis, ..., Minerva, seu de causis linguae latinae. Editio septima, Amstelaedami: Fratrum de Tournes. Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. 1975. Current trends in linguistics: Historiography of linguistics. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. (Vol. 13 of series.) Staal, J. F. 1974. "The origin and development of linguistics in India." In Hymes, ed., 63-74. . 1976. "Sanskrit philosophy of language." In Parret (ed.), 102-136. . 1988. Universals: Studies in Indian logic and linguistics. The University of Chicago Press. Stefanini, Jean. 1978. "Une étape dans l'histoire de la linguistique: la Minerva de Sanctius." In Hommage a Joucla-Ruau. Universite de Provence. Sweet, Paul R. 1989. "Review of Heath 1988." Historiographia Linguistica 16, 387-92. Torrego, Esther. 1972. "Review of the Spanish translation of Chomsky 1966." Revista Espanola de Lingüistica 2, 217-20. Tovar, Antonio, & Pinta Llorente, Miguel de la. 1941. Procesos inquisitoriales contra Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas. Edition y estudio preliminar por —. Madrid: Instituto Antonio de Nebrija. (Documentos para la historia del humanismo espanol, I.) Uitti, Karl D. 1969. "Descartes and Port-Royal in two diverse retrospectives." Romance Philology 23:1, 75-85. Walberg, E. 1909. Lebrija: Gramatica castellana. Reproduction phototypique de l'édition princeps (1492). Halle a. S.: MaxNiemeyer. Webelhuth, Gert. 1986. Cartesian philosophy and the study of language. University of Massachusetts M. A. thesis Yllera, Alicia. 1983. "La gramatica racional castellana en el siglo XVII: La herencia del Brocense en Espaha." In Serta Philologica F. Lázaro Carreter. Madrid: Cátedra, vol. I,649-64. Zimmer, Karl E. 1968. "Review of Chomsky 1966." International Journal of Historical Linguistics 34, 290-303.

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF RUMANIAN /i/ PETER R. PETRUCCI University of Southern California 0.

Introduction An interesting phonological characteristic of Rumanian, setting it apart from all other Romance languages, is the presence of the high central vowel /i/, orthographically represented as i or d Most scholars of Rumanian argue that /i/ first appeared in Rumanian in early Common Slavic (CS) loanwords like rîs < CS *rysv "lynx" and placenames like Rîmnic < CS *rybĭnikŭ "fishers" (CS *y=/i/; Rosetti 1958:29, 1973:70, Hall 1974:93, Mallinson 1988:393). These scholars also claim that the Common Slavic loanwords and placenames with /i/ gave rise to Rumanian-internal processes which resulted in further instances of /i/ in native forms like cînd "when", riu "river", sin "breast", roman "Rumanian (m.)", etc. This paper argues that /i/ developed as a segment internal to Rumanian, and not as a borrowing from Slavic. The traditional treatment of Rumanian /i/ as a phonological borrowing is problematic because loanwords with /i/ in both Rumanian and their Slavic donor form are indeed rare. In fact, the paper demonstrates that all occurrences of /i/ in early Common Slavic loanwords can be treated as Rumanian-internal developments. Furthermore, research on phonological borrowing suggests that Rumanian /i/ behaves more as an integral segment of the native system than as a borrowed segment. The paper also briefly argues that Rumanian /if cannot be treated as a "language shift" feature (Thomason and Kaufman 1988:39) induced by Slavic speakers shifting to Rumanian, because it has a distribution that is markedly different from that of Slavic /if The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 discusses four Rumanianinternal diachronic rules which resulted in /if Section 2 argues that the instances of /i/ in Common Slavic loanwords can be derived internally to Rumanian with one or more of the rules from Section 1. Section 3 discusses general characteristics of phonological borrowing, pointing out crucial problems with the traditional treatment of Rumanian ft/ as a borrowing from Common Slavic.

168

PETRUCCI

Section 4 demonstrates that Rumanian /i/ cannot be treated as a Slavic language shift feature. 1. Diachronic rules resulting in Rumanian lil This section briefly discusses four Rumanian-internal diachronic rules, each of which resulted in /i/. It should be noted that the following rules basically applied to the Common Rumanian (CR)1 six vowel system /i, e, a, a, o, u/,2 noted for the lack of /i/. The most important rule that led to the development of Rumanian /i/ was actually a two-step raising process. First, Common Rumanian /a/ was raised to / a / when followed by a non-geminate /n/, or /m+C/; then, this / a / was later raised to HI under the same environment. This is shown in (la-b), followed by examples. (Segments subject to change are shown in bold type; other changes are not considered.)

CR Rule la Rule lb

*kândo *kàndu [kind] cînd "when"

*kåmpu *kåmpu [kimp] cîmp "field"

*manekåre *m anekáre [mineká] mîneca "to rise early"

*angûstus *angûstus [ingúst] îngust "narrow"

Another rule raised Common Rumanian /a/ to /i/ when followed by /r+C/ or /s+C/, as shown in (2).

CR Rule 2

* vartute *kastig a [virtüte] [kistiga] virtute cistigà "virtue" "vigilant"

1 The Common Rumanian period is generally accepted to have occured between the breakup of Balkan Romance (circa 500-800 AD) and the emergence of the Arumanian dialect (circa 1000 AD) (Coteanu 1969:15f, Rosetti 1968:353). 2 /a/ is a mid central vowel (Heidler 1982).

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF RUMANIAN

169

The third rule affected the Common Rumanian front vowels. All instances of /i/ and /e/, when preceded by trilled /r/, were backed to HI and / a / , respectively, as shown in (3).

CR *ripa Rule 3 [ripa] rip

"cüff"

[RIU]

rîu "river"

*respondere [reesponde] räspunde "to answer"

* ures ku [urask] uräsc "I hate"

It is important to note that the phonemic opposition between Common Rumanian /r/ and /r/ was lost only after (3) had occurred. Also note that (3) must be ordered after (2). The final rule backs (and raises) front vowels to HI when preceded by a consonant and immediately followed by /n/ + a back vowel, as shown in (4).

CR Rule 4

*sinu [sin] sin "breast"

*vénα [vina] vind.

"vein"

To summarize, there are four Rumanian-internal diachronic rules resulting in the development of /i/. These rules play a crucial role in the discussion to follow because they can account for each instance of HI in those Common Slavic loanwords that have been traditionally claimed to be the precursors of Rumanian HI. 2. Early Common Slavic loanwords and placenames in Rumanian Before examining some Slavic loanwords and placenames in Rumanian, I should emphasize a crucial chronological assumption made by the proponents of the borrowing theory. Specifically, they must assume that Rumanian borrowed the representative loanwords with /i/ from Common Slavic, and not from the later South Slavic languages which came into contact with Rumanian after approximately 1100 AD (i.e., Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, and Macedonian). This assumption is necessary because the South Slavic languages

170

PETRUCCI

are noted for the loss of Common Slavic */i/, via a merger with Common Slavic */i/ (Bidwell 1963). I would now like to examine the Common Slavic loanwords and placenames that have been claimed to represent the earliest occurrences of Rumanian /i/. There is no general consensus among scholars of Rumanian as to the first Common Slavic loanwords and placenames to enter the language. Consequently, I have assumed that each scholar is correct, and compiled a list of 149 purported early Common Slavic loanwords and placenames.3 Of these 149 items, only nine have been claimed to be the precursors for the internal development of Rumanian /i/. These nine items are listed with their references in (5a-i). (5) Common Slavic loanwords and placenames which are claimed to have introduced the first occurrences of HI in Rumanian (a) jupîn "master" (Mallinson 1988) (b) stapln "lord" (Hall 1974) (c) stîna "sheep" (Mallinson 1988) (d) mîndru "wise" (Mihil 1974) (e) rînd "line" (Graur 1968) (f) smîntîna"sour cream" (Mallinson 1988) (g) rîs "lynx" (Rosetti 1958, 1973; Mallinson 1988) (h) Rîmnic (Rosetti 1978) (i) hirlet "spade" (Rosetti 1958, 1973) However, the occurrences of /i/ in six of the nine items actually developed internally to Rumanian. That is, as shown by the derivations in (6a-f), the donor Common Slavic forms never had /i/; hence, all these instances of /i/ developed internally to Rumanian, by means of the rules in (1-4). The instances of /i/ in (6a-c) can be accounted for with the two-step raising process in (la-b). In (6d) the Common Slavic nasal round vowel was borrowed by Rumanian as /a/ followed by an epenthetic nasal, with / a / later developing into /i/ via (lb). In (6e,f) the Common Slavic nasal front vowel was borrowed as /e/ followed by an epenthetic nasal, with /e/ later developing into HI via (4); also note that the second occurrence of HI in item (6f) developed via (la-b). (6) Common Slavic loanwords with HI in Rumanian only4 (a) CS *züpánŭ> CR *zvpånv (via Rule la) > jupîn (via Rule lb) (b) CS *stepánŭ> CR *stapànv (via Rule la) > stapîn (via Rule lb) (c) CS *stána > CR stàna (via Rule la) > stîna (via Rule lb) 3

For the sake of brevity, this list has been excluded here. The list is available from the author. 4 Etymologies are from Cioranescu (1958-1963).


171

(d) CS *madrü> CR *mándrv > mîndru (via Rule 1b) (e) CS *redv> CR *réndv>rînd (via Rule 4) (f) CS *sumçtâ'na > CR *sŭmentana (via Rule la) > smînîîna (via Rule 4; via Rule lb) There are only three items which, to my knowledge, have HI in both early Common Slavic and Rumanian. However, here too, the occurrences of/i/ can be derived by one of the rules above. That is, the simplest explanation is that these forms were borrowed into Common Rumanian with /i/, rather than Common Slavic HI, and that later HI developed apart from any Slavic influence, as shown in (7g-i). Items (7g,h) can be derived as follows: First, the Common Slavic occurrences of /i/, unpronounceable for Common Rumanian speakers, were replaced by HI. Then, these instances of Common Rumanian /i/ developed into HI by means of (3) which backed front vowels when followed by a trill. Although somewhat more complex, the derivation of (7i) is similar: The original HI in this item was replaced by Common Rumanian /i/. Then the wordinitial trill induced rule (6), backing /i/ to HI. This was followed by a liquid metathesis and a prothetic /h/. It should be noted that the treatment of (7i) is tentative, because, although prothetic /h/ is common in the history of Rumanian (e.g., Romany akana "now" > hakana "further", Turkish ambar "granary" > hambar, CS *usvpiti > hospi "to oversleep"), I have been unable to find other cases of word-initial liquid metathesis. (7) Common Slavic loanwords and placenames with HI in both Rumanian and Common Slavic (g) CS *rysü> CR *risv> rîs (via Rule 3) (h) CS *rybinikv> CR *ribnikŭ> Rîmnic (via Rule 3) (i) CS *rylicï> CR *rilici > CR *rilic (via Rule 3) > CR *irlic (via metathesis) > hîrlet (prothetic /h/) In addition to the inconsistencies of the data cited by earlier scholars, another significant type of evidence against treating Common Slavic as the source of Rumanian HI concerns a number of loanwords and placenames having HI in Common Slavic but not in Rumanian, as in (8). (8) Loanwords and placenames with /i/ in Common Slavic only CS *byvolŭ > bivol "buffalo" CS *pelynv > pelin "mug-wart" CS *kopyto > copita "skull" CS *vydra > vidrâ "otter" CS *kotyga > cotiga "wagon" CS *bylë "white" > Bila CS *dyxorv> dihor "weasel" CS *bystricï"swift" > Bistrifa CS *myto > mita "gift; money" CS *dobytokv> dobitoc "wild animal"

172

PETRUCCI

Those who argue that /i/ was borrowed from Common Slavic must explain why a number of early loanwords and placenames, like those in (8), with /i/ in their Common Slavic source were incorporated into Rumanian with /i/. Of course, it could be argued that these items were borrowed from South Slavic (i.e. after the merging of */i/ with */i/ as discussed above), but this too is problematic because then the same chronological assumption can be made in order to internally account for the items in (7g-i). 3. Characteristics of phonological borrowing This section discusses the traditional argument for the Common Slavic origin of Rumanian /i/ in light of work on borrowing universals. Addressing language contact universals, Moravcsik (1978:111) argues that a language cannot borrow structural features from another language unless it has already borrowed lexical items from that language. This suggests that in order for a language to borrow structural features from a given language, it must have first borrowed (from that same language) lexical items reflecting those structural features. Phonologically speaking, this means that when a language borrows a feature or segment, that feature or segment is itself present in a number of loanwords from the same donor language. For instance, Yoruba borrowed /p/ from English, and the phoneme is present in a number of English loanwords like /pilo/ "pillow", /pidjOt/ "Peugeot", etc. (Maddieson 1986:5). Similarly, the vast majority of English words with the word-initial cluster /sk/ are loanwords from Old Norse like skin, skill, sky, etc. (Jespersen 1938:69f). If structural borrowing is indeed preceded by representative loanwords, the traditional argument that Rumanian /i/ is a borrowing from Common Slavic is at best doubtful. After all, as demonstrated in the previous section, only three early Common Slavic loanwords and placenames have /i/ in both Rumanian and Common Slavic, and their analysis is indeed debatable. Another problem with claiming that Rumanian /i/ is a borrowing concerns the notion of "sound substitution" (Lehiste 1988:2ff). Research on borrowing has shown that borrowing language speakers replace foreign phonemes or phonotactic patterns with native forms that are phonetically close to the foreign one. It is only after the borrowing has continued for many generations and/or bilingualism between the borrowing and donor language groups has improved, that the previously replaced sounds may enter the borrowing language in their original form. For example, Bloomfield (1933:447) discusses a case where Menomini speakers, having no lateral segment, borrowed English automobile as [atamo:pen], replacing English /1/ by Menomini /n/; however, later


173

generations of Menomini speakers accommodated the sound, pronouncing the English loanword as [atamo:pil]. In view of the tendency for early unpronounceable borrowings to undergo sound substitution by the borrowing language, one would expect Common Rumanian speakers to have replaced Common Slavic /i/ with a near equivalent (for example, /i/, as proposed in (7g-i)); only after a considerable bilingual period would the Common Rumanian speakers nativize /i/. By contrast, proponents of the Common Slavic borrowing theory are implying just the opposite. That is, Common Rumanian speakers borrowed early Common Slavic forms with /i/, such as *rysv "lynx" and *rylicï "spade", and later forms without /i/, such as those in (8). In fact, it is interesting to note that other languages which have come into contact with Slavic languages replaced Common Slavic */i/ (or Russian /i/) by another sound, rather than borrowing items with the donor sound intact, as shown by the six languages in (9). (9) Sound substitution of Slavic /i/ by other languages (a) CS *monastyrï"monastery" > Karelian manasteri (Press 1986:206) (b) CS *my(g)lo "lye" > Veps mugl (ibid:207) (c) Russian obycaj "custom" > Lithuanian abicajus (ibid:205) (d) CS *vysane "heights" > Gr Visani (ibid:209) (e) CS *motyka "hoe" > Al matukë (Rosetti 1978:342) (f) CS *bykv "ox" > Hungarian bika (ibid) Significantly, all of the languages in (9) replaced /i/ with a native /i/, /e/, or /u/. In light of the tendency for borrowing languages to replace Common Slavic */i/ or Russian /i/ with a near equivalent, it is unlikely that Rumanian borrowed Common Slavic */i/, especially in the earliest loanwords. The final problem with claiming that Rumanian /i/ is a borrowing concerns the overall frequency of the segment in the Rumanian lexicon. Thomason and Kaufman (1988:77f) note that, in many cases, a phonological segment or sequence may be borrowed, but its distribution is strictly limited to a few loanwords having that segment or sequence. For example, many speakers of American English have borrowed and ultimately phonemicized the normally illicit initial cluster /sm/ from Yiddish (Maddieson 1986:1), but they only use the sequence in a limited number of Yiddish borrowings like shmuck and schmo, and American Yiddish English word-plays like fancy-schmancy and dad-schmad. By contrast, Rumanian /i/ occurs quite frequently and primarily in native vocabulary. To my knowledge, skewed frequencies where a borrowed segment occurs in more native items than loanwords have not been reported in other

174

PETRUCCI

cases of phonological borrowing, hence suggesting that the traditional claim concerning the origin of Rumanian /if is incorrect. 4. Language shift This section briefly considers whether or not Rumanian /i/ can be treated as a Common Slavic feature of "language shift" (Thomason and Kaufman 1988:39). Language shift, formerly known as substrate influence, entails a language contact situation whereby "...a group of speakers shifting to a target language [TL] fails to learn the TL perfectly. The errors made by members of the shifting group in speaking the TL then spread to the TL as a whole when they are imitated by original speakers of that language." (ibid) As a clear example of language shift consider the Korlai dialect of Portuguese (KP) spoken in and around Goa (Clements 1992). Although Korlai Portuguese has few representative loanwords, it does have a number of Marathi phonological shift features, incorporated when Marathi speakers were (imperfectly) learning Portuguese (P). For example, Portuguese /λ/ was lost in Korlai Portuguese (e.g., P [muλEr] > KP [mulEr] "woman"). Also, the Portuguese nasal vowels were denasalized (e.g., P [kOprar] > KP [kopra] "to buy"). Similarly, the strict constraints in Portuguese concerning word-final consonants (only /l/, /r/, and /s/ are possible) were lost in Korlai Portuguese (e.g., P [korpu] > KP [korp] "body", [agwa] > [ag] "water"). In all of these examples it is important to emphasize that the Marathi shift features reflect aspects of Marathi phonology: that is, the lack of a palatal lateral (Masica 1991:107) and nasal vowels in the inventory (ibid: 118), and a wider array of possible word-final consonants (ibid: 122). By contrast, it is doubtful that Rumanian /i/ represents a Slavic language shift feature. If /i/ had occurred as a result of Slavic speaker errors in the Rumanian target language, one would expect the segment to behave as it does in Slavic, much like the Marathi shift features in Korlai Portuguese. But this is not the case. Unlike Slavic /i/, the distribution of Rumanian /if is not dependent upon a palatalized/non-palatalized series of consonants (cf. Russian [visoko] "highly" and [v'isok] "temple" with Rumanian [vir] "cousin (m.)" and [viril] "virile"). Furthermore, once again unlike Slavic, Rumanian /i/ can occur wordinitially, even in Slavic borrowings (CS *omlatü> îmblaci "flail"). In view of these distributional differences, it is doubtful that Rumanian /i/ developed as a result of language shift attributed to Slavic speakers' errors in Rumanian.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF RUMANIAN /if

175

5. Conclusion To summarize, this paper has argued that Rumanian /if was not a borrowing from Slavic, but rather a segment that developed internally. It was demonstrated that the majority of the early Common Slavic loanwords that researchers have claimed to represent the first occurrences of Rumanian /if actually had no /i/ in the source word, the occurrences of /i/ in these items having developed internally to Rumanian. In addition, it was argued that the traditional claim for a Common Slavic origin was problematic because the distributional behavior of Rumanian /i/ is crucially different from that of borrowed segments in other languages. Finally, it was argued that the exact distributional facts of Rumanian /i/ do not allow the segment to be treated as a Slavic language shift feature. REFERENCES Bidwell, Charles E. 1963. Slavic Historical Phonology in Tabular Form. The Hague: Mouton. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cioranescu, Alejandro. 1958-1963. Diccionario Etimológico Rumano. Madrid: Biblioteca Filológica. Clements, J.C. 1992. "Language shift and language borrowing effects in Korlai Portuguese". Paper read at the annual meeting of the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Philadelphia. Coteanu, I. 1969. Morfologia numelui in protoromâna. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia. Graur, Al. 1968. Tendintele actuale ale limbii romane. Bucharest: Editura stiintifica si enciclopedica. Hall, Robert, A. Jr. 1974. External History of the Romance Languages. New York: Elsevier. Heidler, D.J. 1982. "Word-final vowels in Romance: an instrumental analysis of Portuguese and Rumanian". In Philip Baldi (ed.) Papers from the XII LSRL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jespersen, Otto. 1938. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lehiste, Ilse. 1988. Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Maddieson, Ian. 1986. "Borrowed sounds". In Joshua A. Fishman et. al. (eds.) The Fergusonian Impact, Volume 1:1-16. The Hague: Mouton. Mallinson, Graham. 1988. "Rumanian". In Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds.) The Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

176

PETRUCCI

Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Cambridge University Press. Mihil, G. 1974. Dictionar al limbii romane vechi. Bucharest: Editura enciclopedic romn. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. "Language contact". In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Human Language, Volume 1:93-123. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Pardess, David F. 1990. From Latin to Rumanian. UCLA Ph.D. dissertation. Press, J.I. 1986. "Aspects of the phonology of the Slavonic languages: the vowel "y" and the consonantal correlation of palatalization". Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 7. Rosetti, Alexandru. 1958. "Slavo-Romanica: sur la constitution du système vocalique du roumain". Romano-Slavica 1:27-30. . 1968. Istoria limbii romane de la origini pin in secolul al XVII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Pentru Literatur. . 1973. Brève histoire de la langue roumaine des origines à nos jours. The Hague: Mouton. . 1978. Istoria limbii romane. Bucharest: Editura stiintifica si enciclopedica. Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

FEATURE-CHECKING AND THE SYNTAX OF LANGUAGE CONTACT EDWARD J. RUBIN & ALMEIDA J. TORIBIO Cornell University In previous work, Belazi, Rubin & Toribio (1991) proposed that the codeswitching of balanced bilinguals is constrained by the Functional Head Constraint, given in (1). (1)

The Functional Head Constraint The language feature of the complement f-selected by a functional head, like all other relevant features, must match the corresponding feature on that functional head.

This principle constrains switching between a functional head and its complement by invoking the strong relation thought to obtain between the two. This relation, referred to as 'F-Selection' in Abney (1987), is a part of Universal Grammar. The Functional Head Constraint sought to reformalize fselection as a feature-matching process which makes reference to a set of features which includes language. Under this view, code-switching is constrained by universal syntactic considerations and is thus, in this respect, like any other language (and see, among others, Woolford (1983), where universal constraints on code-switching are also proposed). In accordance with the Functional Head Constraint, the available data indicate that a functional head and its complement must be in the same language. 1 Thus, for example, (2a), in which there is a switch between the 1 Belazi et al. (1991) base their conclusions on data gathered by eliciting judgements to a variety of test sentences from Tunisian Arabic-French and Hispanic Spanish-English bilinguals and corroborated by an analysis of several texts exhibiting natural talk among these bilinguals (see Belazi (1991) for further discussion of methodology involved in the gathering of such data). Code-switching among fluent adult bilinguals should not be confused with any sort of imperfect second language acquisition, language interference, or borrowing. For discussion of these distinctions, see Pfaff (1979) and Poplack (1980, 1983). We must point out too that it is a well established fact that competent and marginally competent bilinguals demonstrate disparate behaviors in intra-sentential code-switching (see, among others, Poplack (1980), Joshi (1985), and Belazi (1991)). Thus, bilinguals who are

178

RUBIN & TORIBIO

functional head C° and its complement IP, is ill-formed. Similarly, switching between 1° and VP, as in (3a), is disallowed. (4a) illustrates the ill-formedness of switching between a negative head and its complement. In (5 a) we see that a switch is impossible between the head D° and its complement NP. And in (6a) switching is impossible between the head Q° and its complement NP. (2)

a. b.

*Elprofesor dijo [que [the student had received an A.]] El profesor dijo [that [ the student had received an A.]] "The professor said that the student had received an A."

(3)

a. b.

*Los policias [han [seen a thief. ]] Los policias [han [visto a thief. ]] "The police have seen a thief."

(4)

a. b.

*El chico [no [wants the book. ]] The boy [neg [wants the book. ]] 'The man doesn't want the book."

(5)

a. b.

*Estaba leyendo un magazine. Estaba leyendo a magazine. "I was reading a magazine."

(6)

a. b.

*[Pocos [ students finished the exam. ]] [Pocos [estudiantes finished the exam. ]] "Few students finished the exam."

The (a) sentences in (2-6) contrast with the well-formed (b) sentences, in which the language is maintained across the functional head and its complement. On the well-motivated assumption that C°, I°, NEG°, D° and Q° are all functional heads, the data are predicted. (See Abney (1987), Rivero (1988), Chomsky (1989), Pollock (1989), and Bowers (1990) on the functional status of these Xo categories.) The Functional Head Constraint doesn't rule out the switching in (7-8), just as it shouldn't; switching, in fact, occurs freely between a lexical head and its complement. not fully competent in the component languages, or those who do not engage in codeswitching are likely to violate the Functional Head Constraint. We suggest, however, that these are only apparent violations: these speakers might be reinterpreting the segments of one language as having the language feature of the the other, and accordingly, they interpret the code-switched sentences as wholly English or Spanish strings, and therefore, such switches do not constitute violations of the Functional Head Constraint since there is no switch in the language feature (see Toribio and Lantolf (in preparation)).

FEATURE-CHECKING AND LANGUAGE CONTACT

(7)

They used to serve bebidas alcohólicas en ese restaurante. "They used to serve alcoholic beverages in that restaurant."

(8)

The unforeseen f act que el tren llegó tarde me enojó. "The unforeseen fact that the train arrived late annoyed me."

179

The reformalization of f-selection as the Functional Head Constraint not only succeeds in capturing the observed patterns of grammaticality in both unilingual and code-switched utterances, but it also does so in a fashion which is consistent with more general considerations of theoretical syntax. In fact, recent work by Chomsky makes clear the natural role that the Functional Head Constraint plays in a general theory of grammar. Chomsky (1991b) proposes a new conception of the structure of the computational component of the grammar, which expands on his recent paper "Some Notes on the Economy of Derivations and Representations" (Chomsky 1991a). In this paper, we outline one general mechanism, called Morphological Checking, that Chomsky adopts for motivating derivations. We will then show how f-selection, as conceived in the Functional Head Constraint, is of a similar nature to Morphological Checking. It will become clear that the Functional Head Constraint and Morphological Checking corroborate and complement each other, and that together they provide a more convincing conception of derivations and representations. In his new conception of grammar, Chomsky assumes that items are pulled out of the lexicon fully inflected and marked with a set of abstract features. These features include such things as verbal agreement, case, and scopal properties, and are all referred to as Capital "CASE" features. These features must be "checked" in order for a derivation to yield a well-formed representation. This is represented by a generalized form of the CASE Filter, given in (9). (9)

All CASE features must be checked. (derivable from properties of the interfaces)

For checking to occur, an element with some CASE feature must be in the Checking Domain of a functional head which is a checker for that feature. The Checking Domain of a head is determined according to definitions whose particulars are not relevant to the discussion here.2 What is important is that the 2 For the interested and courageous reader, Chomsky's definitions, drawn from class notes, are as follows:

180

RUBIN & TORIBIO

circled nodes in tree (10) constitute the checking domain of the head H. Morphological Checking, then, is understood to be a process which must apply during a derivation to render a representation grammatical.

(10)

As examples of the operation of the process of Morphological Checking, consider the sentences in (11-13). (11) a. b.

She often sees him. [Ip She NP I° [VP often [vp t Np [v sees him ]]]]

(12) a.

What do you see?

b.

[CP WhatwH [c° dol [c° ]] [lP YOUNP tI [yp tNP [v see tWH

]]]] (13) a. b.

a. b. c. & e

Marie voit souvent Jean. "Marie often sees Jean." [ Ip MarieNP [I0 voity [I0 ]] [vp souvent [yp ÎNP [ V tv Jean ]]]]

a includes everything dominated by all of its segements, a covers everything dominated by any of its segements. a contains everything it includes or covers. Domain (H) = ( a ( ) H P contains a, and a doesn't contain H.} Minimal Domain (H) = the smallest set K contained in the D(omain) such that if a Œ D, then there exists a b Œ K such that b includes a. f. Complement Domain (H) = { a Q. a is included in some complement of H} g. Min (CompD) = Internal Domain (H) = "Complements but not things included in Complements." = (a) h. Residue (H) = Domain - Complement Domain i. Min Res. (H) = Checking Domain = {b, d, g, q}

181


In (11) She often sees him , the subject 'she' comes out of the lexicon marked with, among other things, the CASE feature [Nominative] and, if we adopt the VP internal Subject Hypothesis as Chomsky does, moves to its final location in the Sped position. Since Sped is within the Checking Domain of the tensed 1°, which is a Checker of Nominative CASE, the [Nominative] feature of 'she' is checked, and, the representation is grammatical. In (12) What do you see? , the Wh-element comes out of the lexicon marked with the CASE feature [Scopal] and moves to the SpecC position where it is in the Checking Domain of the (+wh) C°, where its CASE feature is checked. Thus the frequently invoked notion of wh Spec-Head agreement in CP is captured as a sub-case of Morphological Checking. Next, consider the French sentence in (13) Marie voit souvent Jean "Marie often sees Jean". It is commonly assumed that the French verb moves to 1°. Chomsky holds that this movement too is motivated by Morphological Checking. The verb comes out of the lexicon marked with its [Agreement] features, and moves to a position adjoined to 1°, the checker for verbal agreement. Morphological Checking applies in the Checking Domain of 1° and the resulting representation is grammatical. Now contrast the sentences in (11-13) with the corresponding Irish, Chinese, and English sentences in (14-16). Clearly, the same CASE features are involved, and yet, it is equally clear that the same structural relationships between the relevant elements do not hold at S-structure here as held in (11-13). According to Chomsky, the same structural relationships do hold, but only at the level of LF. (14) a.

b. c. (15) a.

Bhuail mé leis. struck I with-him "I met him." S-Str. [IP [I0 Bhuailv [I0 ]] [vp mé [v t v leis ]]] LF [Ip mé NP [I0 Bhuailv [I0 ]] [vp tNP [v' tv leis ]]] Zhang-San cht shenme? Zhang-San eats what "What does Zhang-San eat?"

b.

S-Str. [CP [cO ] [IP Z-SNP [r° ] [vP tNP [v chi shenme ]]]]

c.

LF

(16) a. b. c.

[CP shenmewH [co [I0 chiy [I0 ]]i [C0 ] ] [IP [VP tNP [V tv twH ]]]]

Z-SNP

ti

She often sees him S-Str. [IP She NP [I0 ] [VP often [vp t NP [v sees him ]]]] LF [IP She NP [I0 seesy [I0 ]] [vP often [vp tNP [v ty him ]]]]

182

RUBIN & TORIBIO

For example, the English subject in (11) moves to SpecI, where Morphological Checking may occur, before the level of S-Structure, while the Irish subject in (14) moves there only after S-Structure. Thus Irish demonstrates at LF the configuration between the CASE marked subject and the CASE checker I° which is necessary for Morphological Checking to apply. Similarly, the English Wh-element in (12) moves to SpecC, where it is in the Checking Domain of a [+wh] C°, before the level of S-Structure, while in (15) the Chinese Wh-element waits until after S-structure to move to SpecC. At LF, the Chinese sentence exhibits the requisite structural relationship between C° and the wh-phrase, and Morphological Checking is again satisfied. Finally, the French verb in (13) moves to a position adjoined to I°, where it is in the Checking Domain of I°, before S-Structure, while the English verb in (16) waits until after S-Structure to move. In English, then, Morphological Checking of [Agreement] is satisfied at LF. Thus Morphological Checking plays a central role in Chomsky's new conceptualization of grammar. A node with CASE features must be within the Checking Domain of a functional head which can check those features at some point before the end of the derivation. If a node with a CASE feature can't reach a position within the Checking Domain of the appropriate functional head, the resultant representation is ill-formed. For example, an infitive with an overt nominative subject is ungrammatical because it does not contain a checker for nominative case (+tns I°). And if a node is within the Checking Domain of a functional head, but doesn't match the functional head with respect to the relevant features, then again the derivation yields an ungrammatical representation. For example, in (17) Her was seen , the CASE feature of the subject NP does not match that of the only available CASE Checker, I°, and the sentence is therefore ill-formed. (17) a. *Her was seen. b. [IP HerNP [I was [vp [v seen tNP ]]]] Feature checking is also central to the work of Belazi et al. (1991). And the similarity between the Functional Head Constraint and Chomsky's Morphological Checking is self-evident. An important difference, however, is that the Functional Head Constraint refers to the complements of functional heads, which, when translated into Chomsky's terminology, do not form part of the Checking Domain of those functional heads. Instead, complements are the sole elements of the Internal Domain of those functional heads. Although Chomsky did not discuss the Internal Domains of functional heads in any detail,


183

it is clear that he had some notion of f-selection in mind. In particular, what he said is given in (18): (18) a. b. c.

If H = C, ID(H) = IP, IfH = D,ID(H) = NP, etc.

We can understand these ad hoc formulas as the result of a feature-checking process, similar to Morphological Checking, that takes place in the Internal Domain of the functional head. Note that if we do so, we derive exactly the characterization that the Functional Head Constraint already provides. A feature checking conception of f-selection would then hold that a tenseless C° (for example, the prepositional complementizer "for" in English) must select a tenseless IP complement, or the resulting representation will be ill-formed. Likewise, a singular determiner (such as the Spanish la "the") must select a singular NP, or again the phrase will include mismatched features, and, therefore, be ill-formed. But, recall that according to the Functional Head Constraint, language, like tense and number, is also a relevant feature for the matching of a functional head and its complement: a functional head must select a complement which matches its language feature. If the language feature of a functional head and its complement don't match, the resulting representation will be ill-formed. It becomes evident, then, that Chomsky's work and our earlier work stand in a mutually supportive role with respect to each other. Chomsky's work indicates a context in which it is quite natural to expand Abney's notion of F-Selection to include the selection of a matching language feature. The operation of the Functional Head Constraint together with Morphological Checking makes possible a greater coherence in the compositional component of the grammar than even Chomsky suspects. In Chomsky's system, functional heads check features of elements in their Checking Domains only. The Functional Head Constraint assures that the features of functional heads match the features of their Internal Domains, thus precluding the need for Chomsky's ad hoc formulas in (18). Combining Chomsky's notion of Morphological Checking with the notion of f-selection reformalized as the Functional Head Constraint provides a conception of grammar in which functional heads have a unified role. Not only do functional heads act as checkers of the CASE features of elements in their Checking Domains, but they also act as checkers of the features of elements in their internal domain. Therefore, more generally, functional heads relate to other nodes by means of abstract feature-matching.

184

RUBIN & TORIBIO

To conclude, Belazi et al. (1991) and Chomsky (1991b), among others, have argued that feature-matching processes have strong empirical and theoretical motivations. Our work here has provided further motivation of these types. Evidence from language contact phenomena, which we presented above, provides a strong empirical motivation for holding that feature-matching is a central and crucial aspect of the compositional component of the grammar, and, the balance of the grammar suggested here, which includes both Morphological Checking and the Functional Head Constraint, provides theoretical support.

REFERENCES Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation: Cambridge, Massachusettes: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Belazi, H. 1991. Multilingualism in Tunesia and Code-switching among Educated Tunisian Bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation: Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Belazi, H., E. Rubin, A. J. Toribio. 1991. "Code-Switching, X-bar Theory, and Processing". Paper presented at The XII Symposium on Spanish and Portuguese Bilingualism. Florida International University. Bowers, J. 1990. "The Syntax and Semantics of Predication". Unpublished manuscript. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Chomsky, N. 1991a. "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation". In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar by R. Freiden (editor), 417-454. Cambridge, Massachusettes: The MIT Press. . 1991b. Class Notes. Cambridge, Massachusettes: Massachusettes Institute of Technology. Pfaff, C. 1979. "Constraints on Language Mixing: Intrasentential Codeswitching and Borrowing in Spanish-English". Language 55.291318. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP". Linguistic Inquiry 20.365-424. Poplack, S. 1980. "Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish and termino en Espanol: Toward a Typology of Code-switching". In Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Aspects by J. Amastae and L. Elias-Olivares (editors), 230-263. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. .. 1983. "Bilingual competence: Linguistic interference or grammatical integrity?" in Spanish in the U.S. Setting: Beyond the Southwest by L. Elias-Olivares (editor), National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.


185

Rivero, M.L. 1988. "The Structure of IP and V-movement in the Languages of the Balkans", unpublished manuscript. Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa. Toribio, A. and J. Lantolf. In preparation. "Competent versus Non-competent Bilinguals: On the Role of Universal Grammar in Adult Second Language Acquisition". Manuscript. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Woolford, E. 1983. "Bilingual Code-switching and Syntactic Theory". Linguistic Inquiry 14.520-536.

DIALECTAL VARIATION IN AN ARGUMENTAL/NON-ARGUMENTAL ASYMMETRY IN SPANISH MARGARITA SUNER & CARMEN LIZARDI Cornell University The argument/adjunct distinction has provided fertile ground for linguistic research, and has given rise to important explanations by restricting grammatical processes. As an illustration, consider just one example of Huang's (1982) Condition on Extraction Domains, cf (1). This condition permits movement out of a properly governed domain; hence it explains why an argument can front (as in (la)), but why extraction from within an adjunct is banned (as in (lb)). (l)a. Who(m) did you see t with red hair? b. *What color hair did you see students with t ? Ross' (1984) Inner Island effects also points out the same type of asymmetry (cf also Rizzi 1990a), see (2) where negation hinders the extraction of adverbial elements but not the extraction of arguments. (2)a .Bill is here, which they (don't) know. b. Bill is here, as they (*don't) know. This paper continues the tradition by elucidating the asymmetric behavior of arguments and adjuncts under wh-questions in general/standard Spanish (GS). Then, it establishes a comparison with the Caribbean subdialect spoken in Puerto Rico (PRS), a variety which does not follow the GS pattern. The conclusion maintains that parametrization is in order. 1. General Spanish Ever since Torrego (1984), it has been known that GS exhibits an adjunct/argument asymmetry with respect to verb fronting in both root and embedded environments. It is only with the fronting of argument wh's that "subject-verb inversion" must apply (3). With adjunct fronting the subject may,

188

SUNER & LIZARDI

but need not, be preverbal (4). The same is true of yes/no questions since no argumentai wh moves in them (5). (3)a. ?Qué le compró Pili a su amiga? (cf*ïQué Pili le compró a su amiga?) "What did Pili buy for her friend?" b. No sé qué le compró Pili a su amiga. (cf*No sé qué Pili le compró a su amiga.) "I don't know what Pili bought for her friend." (4)a. ?Cuándo Juan consiguió por fin abrir la puerta oyer? "When did J finally succeed in opening the door yesterday?" Torrego 1984: 106 b. ¿Cómo una mujer asi pudo casarse con ese hombre? "How could a woman like that get-married to such a man?" D132 c. ¿Con que recursos Juliana decidió emprender semejante viaje? "With what means did J decide to-undertake such a voyage? d. El comprendió perfectamente adónde yo iba. "He understood perfectly where I was-going." D11 (5)a. ¿Los Luna compraron la casa de la esquina? "Did the Luna's buy the corner house?" b. Me preguntaron si los Luna habian comprado la casa de la esquina. "They asked me whether the L had bought the corner house." However, since non-argument argumentals, which are selected but not thetamarked by the V (Rizzi 1990a, Chomsky 1990), also require subject-verb inversion (6), I adopt the term "argumentai" or "selected" to encompass both subtypes of lexically related wh's (those in (3) and (6)). (6)a. ?Cuânto pesarâ esta beba? (cf * i Cudnto esta bebapesará?) "How much would this baby(girl) weigh?" b. No sé cuánto mide la sala. (cf*No sé cuânto la sala mide.) "I don't know how much the living-room measures." For the sake of brevity, we must now make a couple of assumptions (see Suher 1994 for arguments and justification). We assume a version of the internal subject hypothesis where subjects are generated inside the VP (for Spanish, see Zagona 1982, Groos and Bok-Bennema 1986, and Contreras 1987 for different proposals). For concreteness, see the (simplified) skeleton

DIALECTAL VARIATION IN AN ASYMMETRY IN SPANISH

189

tree in (7); subjects are base-generated in NP* (cf Sportiche 1988, and Koopman and Sportiche 1988).1

The second assumption is that V obligatorily moves head to head to the highest functional projections of IP (=AgrP), but that it does not continue to C°. This means that when the subject remains VP internal, after the V obligatorily raises to I°, the order wh V subject . . . obtains. And third, we further assume a uniform landing site for wh-phrases, that is, SpecC (Chomsky 1986b, Rizzi 1990b vs. Diesing 1990 for Yiddish, and Groos and BokBennema 1986 and Goodall 1993 for Spanish). Crucially, wh's cannot land in SpecI because this is exclusively an A-position in Spanish occupied either by the preverbal subject, or when the subject remains inside VP, by expletive pro in a chain with the subject.2 In the absence of these assumptions, previous treatments had to face the question "why V-fronting was obligatory with argu mentai wh's but only optional with non-argumental ones." What must be explained within our proposal is why the subject cannot raise to [Spec, IP] when an argumentai wh is in [Spec, CP]. Given this background, we can now concentrate on the wh-asymmetry. Two things are obvious from the distribution of the data in (3)-(6): first, the

1 Although we assume that I° is actually articulated into its functional subcomponents (ie, AgrP > TP > . . . > V m a x ; cf Pollock 1989, Chomsky 1988), we use I° and IP as shorthand unless crucial to the presentation. 2 This is independently justified by the Extended Projection Principle, and by Subject-Verb agreement. Regarding the latter, consider that even when the VP-internal subject gets nominative in situ under government, V must move all the way up to Agr° to join with person/number features; by Spec-head agreement, it agrees with the expletive. Through chaincoindexing, both elements of the A-chain (the expletive and the postverbal subject) come to agree in features.

190

SUNER & LIZARDI

explanation must be related to selected constituents, and second, it must have to do with the licensing of wh's. The principle of Full Interpretation (Chomsky 1986a) mandates that every element must be licensed in order to be appropriately interpreted. Wh's are licensed by the universal condition known as the Wh-Criterion; see May (1985), and Rizzi's (1990b) re-statement in (8). (8)a. Each [+wh] X° must be in a Spec-head relation with a wh-phrase. b. Each wh-phrase must be in a Spec-head relation with a [+wh] X°. In embedded clauses, C° is given the [+wh] feature by the higher selecting V, the wh-phrase fronts, and through Spec-head agreement (8) is satisfied. Note that V cannot be in C° in this environment because the head has the "meaningful" [+wh] feature; ie, C° is not radically empty in Rizzi and Roberts' (1989) terms. Given the parallellism with which Spanish deals with matrix and embedded contexts (eg. in both, wh-V-S . . . order required with argumentai wh's; Left-dislocated constituents may adjoin to IP; the possibility of a Focus Phrase higher than IP, etc), and the strength of its agreement processes, we claim that Spec-head agreement is also the licensing strategy used for wh's in root contexts (cf. (3b), (4d), (5b) and (6b)). Rizzi (1990b) shows that French avails itself of this alternative way of licensing in some main clauses (9). (9) A qui [tu as parlé t] ? To whom you have spoken? What GS has in addition to the Wh-Criterion is a language particular condition which assures that argumentai wh's satisfy "locality" by being connected to the predicate in the IP complement. This condition is expressed in terms of the feature [+S(elected)].3 The [+S] wh-phrase induces this feature on C° by Spec-head agreement. V has this feature by virtue of its selection properties. Hence, C° and V must match in S-features by head-head agreement. Selection Agreement Licensing (10) is an instance of formal checking which applies at S-structure. It should be seen as an S-structure supplement to the Wh-Criterion.

"Argumentai" could also be used instead.


191

(10) Selection Agreement Licensing a. Selected wh-phrases must be licensed through S-agreement between a (=CO) and ß (=V). b. a S-agrees with ß only if a and ß are S-marked and no other selected lexical element intervenes. The structure in (11) serves to verify how this condition works.

In (11), a and ß are both S-marked; however, they cannot S-agree because the lexical S-marked Σ intervenes between them interrupting strict locality. In other words, a lexically filled [Spec, IP] blocks the S-agreement relationship between C° and V. If SpecAgr were occupied by expletive pro in (11), the condition would be met. Note that selection by a head is local (cf the binary branching condition of Kayne 1984); hence, it makes sense to use this feature to capture the locality of the S-agreement condition. In effect, S-selection is a type of Minimality relativized to [+S] elements. That Selection Agreement involves formal checking has the advantage of accounting not only for those cases in which the argumentai wh "belongs" to a given predicate, but also for instances in which the long extracted argumentai wh lands in a CP other than its own, see (12) and (13). (12)a. ?lCuantos caramelos] dip Paco que yo le habia dado t al niho? b. *¿[Cuântos caramelos] Paco dijo que yo le habia dado t al nino? "How many candies did Paco say that I had given to the boy?"

192

SUNER & LIZARDI

(13)a. Mara preguntó (que) [cuânîos caramelos dijo Paco [que yo le habia dado t al nino]] "M. asked (that) how many candies said Paco that I to-him had given to-the boy" b. * . . . [cuânîos caramelos Paco dijo [ . . . ]] The important fact in these examples is that the question is well-formed (all other factors in compliance) if S-Agreement between the head of CP where the wh has landed and the V in Agr can take place. That is, the fact that the whphrase is not selected by the predicate which S-agrees with the relevant C (and the wh) is irrelevant to condition (10) just as it is irrelevant for the Wh-Criterion that the wh-phrase might have moved beyond its own clause. In other words, formal licensing must take place regardless of how deeply embedded the whoriginally is. Non-argumental wh's and yes/no questions, as expected, do not need to comply with the second condition. The reason is that even though Vs are (generally) selectors, since the wh-phrase is [-S], no S-agreement is possible between the two relevant elements. Hence subjects may (but need not) appear between the wh-phrase and the V (cf. (4) and (5)). One must wonder, however, whether S-agreement has a deeper motivation for being. It separates argumentals from adjuncts in GS, but why? Other languages (English, Italian, etc) seem to manage quite well without this distinction. One possibility is that S-agreement serves to enforce Chomsky's (1990) uniformity of chains. Uniformity is a relational notion that must be understood with respect to some property. Suppose this property is selectionmarking. When selected wh-phrases move from an argumentai position, they raise to a SpecC which must also be interpreted as argumentai. GS achieves this by subject-verb inversion, that is, by not allowing the subject to raise to SpecI; the result is locality. That this might be the correct motivation for S-agreement Licensing is suggested by the fact that uniformity and locality are tightly linked (Chomsky 1990). The only curious thing is that S-agreement in Spanish is an S-structure condition that does not operate at LF (and see Suher 1994 for more on this). We'll come back to how Selection Agreement Licensing further explains other facts about the language once we introduce some facets of Puerto Rican Spanish (PRS).


193

2. Puerto Rican Caribbean 4 A well-known fact about PRS is that it allows preverbal subjects in the questioning of argumentals (14) (all attested examples). (14)a. iQuién tû, eres? who you are "Who are you?" b. ¿Qué él va a hacerallâ? what he is-going to do there? c. ¿Cuânto tu te ganas al dia? how much you earn for yourself daily? d. Me dijo que cuântas capas yo llevaba debajo. S/he asked me that how many layers I was-wearing underneath. e. Ayer me llamaron de Puerto Rico para ver qué yo. iba a hacer. yesterday they called me from PR for to-see what I was-going to do The first mention of this phenomenon appears to be Navarro (1948, based on field work done in the 20's). In direct questions he found only the pronouns tu, usted, and ustedes, but in embedded ones yo and nosotros also appeared. Since then, many other researchers (Davis 1971, Quirk 1972, Bergen 1976, Lipski 1977, Contreras 1989; also Hennquez Urena 1940, Nunez Cedeno 1983, and Heap 1990 for the Dominican Republic; and probably others) have posited a wide range of explanations for the origins and spread of preverbal subjects (cf Lizardi 1991). Unfortunately, based largely on impressionistic assessments, all of these analyses fail to account for present day usage of preverbal subjects. In what follows, we examine three different possibilities for explaining the PR facts. 2.1 The Cliticization Hypothesis. One favorite way of dealing with the data in (14) seems to be the "Cliticization Hypothesis." Lipski's (1977) main thesis is that due to weakened agreement, the sequence pronoun + verb behaves phonetically and phonologically as a "nexus combination" in which the pronoun is an "indicator of person" (Quirk 1972). This view is further developed in Heap (1990; and mentioned in Contreras 1989). Heap's main assumption is that each subject pronoun has phonologically identical strong and weak counter parts, and that only the weak alternate appears in preverbal position with argu4

From the point of view of GS, Caribbean Spanish appears to be changing, even though not all of the subdialects are equally along in the process. In addition to geographic location, there is little doubt that generation, level of education, register, and other variables play a role in language development. Although this would be a fruitful area for sociolinguistic research, our objective is far more modest. We point out some of the differences between GS and PRS, and suggest how the differences might be explained. The data below is from the spoken colloquial language.

194

SUNER & LIZARDI

mental wh's. Putting aside the lack of independent evidence and the circularity of this reasoning, there are other factors that indicate the inadequacy of this hypothesis. First, if subject pronouns were indeed clitics, predictably they should attach to the V, and the sentential negator and preverbal adverbials should appear before the clitic+V complex. The ungrammaticality of (15) shows the prediction to be false. (15)a. *¿qué no tu haces? what not you do?" b. *¿qué todavialapenaslya casi tu estudios? what yet/barely/already almost you study? Consider that Spanish no 'not' may appear by itself (contrary to French ne), and so can the adverbials in (15b). (16) ¿Estudiaste mucho ? No / Apenas. "Did you study a lot? No / barely" Second, clitics are always unstressed. However, nosotros and usted/es necessarily bear stress, cf the following attested examples: (17)a. ¿Qué ustedes cornieron? what you(pl) ate? b. ¿Qué nosotras hariamos si el doctor nos dijera que estábamos embarazadas? what we would-do if the doctor would tell us that we-were pregnant? c. ¿Para qué nosotros hemos perdido tiempo? for what we have lost time? Third, already in Kayne (1975) it is pointed out that clitics cannot be quantified. However, preverbal subjects can indeed be quantified in PRS, cf. (18). (18)a ¿A quién ustedes tres vieron oyer? who(m) you(pl) three saw yesterday? b. ¿Por qué todas nosotras estamos comiendo en esta oscuridad? (A mi no me gusta) why we all are eating in the dark? (I don't like it) Finally, the Cliticization hypothesis completely collapses under the fact that not only pronouns but also full noun phrases may be preverbal in Caribbean; cf (19) from PRS. This phenomenon is increasingly evident in these dialects. And


195

note as an aside, that these examples together with those in (14) demonstrate that V cannot be in C°. (19)a. ¿Qué ese hombre le ha quitado a eso? what that man has taken away from that? b. ¿Por dónde la carretera queda? about where the highway is located? c. ¿Qué la gente va a decir? what the people are-going to say? d. ¿Cuándo un implante dental es exitoso? when a dental implant is successful? e. Yo no sé qué la muchacha queria. I not know what the woman wanted ese método les está haciendo. f. Ellas no saben qué they (f.) don't know what the method is doing to them. In brief, the Cliticization hypothesis should be put to rest. 2.2 The Case Hypothesis. Another conceivable way of explaining the preverbal positioning of subjects might be found in Case Theory, that is, in the way nominative is checked. Assume for a moment that contrary to GS where nominative assignment appears to be done uniformly under government by the raised V in I° (cf Koopman and Sportiche 1988), in PRS nominative is assigned only in SpecI under Spec-head agreement. This would mean that nominative has become a purely configurational type of marking. Nevertheless, this hypothesis also fails to take into account all the data; for after considering only those subjects which may be [±overt], Lizardi's sample (of 572 tokens) shows that although 50% of subjects are preverbal, 15% are still postverbal. Some examples follow: (20)a. ¿Quién soy yo ahora? who am I now? b. ¿Qué pensaban ellos.de Ud? what were-thinking they about you? "What were they thinking of you?" c. Cómo varia el hombre japonés ante la mujer cientifica? how varies the Japanese man in-front-of the scientific woman? Consequently, Case theory does not readily and unequivocally explain the preverbal subject phenomenon either. 2.3 The ThemelRheme Hypothesis. The most adequate explanation for what is happening in Caribbean appeals to the thematic/rhematic structure of the

196

SUNER & LIZARDI

sentence (Suner 1990), understood not as equivalent to old and new but as illustrating the contrast between presupposed and asserted (Jackendoff 1972, Suner 1982). In PRS, the tendency to place non-asserted/presupposed subjects consistently in a thematic position has taken precedence over obligatory subjectverb inversion with argumentai wh's. 5 Notice that this hypothesis implies a parallellism with declaratives, where thematic elements are found preverbally. One advantage of this reasoning is that it directly explains why pronouns are more pervasive in preverbal position than lexical nouns; pronouns tend to be used when the referent is presupposed (ie, when its identification is either known or not important). The high frequency of preverbal first and second person pronouns—typical instances of presupposed elements in the conversational context—confirms this hypothesis. One corollary of this is that the postverbal position is mainly used to introduce rhematic elements, ie, those under the scope of assertion.6 This also explains why non-pronominal elements are more frequently found in [Spec, VP] than pronominal ones. To corroborate this intuition overt pronominal and non-pronominal subjects were counted. From a total of 284 pronominal tokens, we found that 83% are preverbal while only 17% are postverbal. In (21), the 284 tokens are further sub divided into argumentals and adjuncts complements. (21)

Preverbal argumentals 77% (110) adjuncts 89% (126)

Postverbal 23% (33) 11% (15)

Compare these pronominal percentages to those obtained with nonpronominal NPs; of 68 tokens, 59% are preverbal whereas 41% are postverbal. The distribution between argumentals and adjuncts is found in (22). (22) Preverbal argumentals 32% (6) adjuncts 69% (34)

Postverbal 68% (13) 31% (15)

The correctness of this hypothesis was further verified by analyzing approximately 20 hours of speech that included segments of recorded TV programs as well as spontaneous conversations in various informal settings (family gatherings, exchanges between friends, members at a gym, and employees at a nursing home). Given the almost categorial presence of first and * Cf Stiehm (1987) for a somewhat similar conclusion. " In addition, preverbal and postverbal subjects may have focal stress when they are meant to be contrastive.


197

second person pronouns in preverbal position (over 90% of the time), we concentrated on the study of third person ones, proper names, and other full NPs, which are found less frequently in that position. As one would expect, these third person elements are not always presupposed in the conversational context. Consequently, the consistent placement of presupposed third person subjects in preverbal position would constitute the best evidence for the validity of the theme/ rheme hypothesis. For reasons of time and space, we are limited to two representative examples of preverbal positioning of the subject, one with an argumentai wh (23), and another one with a non-argumentai one (24) (cf. Lizardi 1991 for more). The relevant utterance in (23) takes place in a traffic jam. The informants noticed that a big and old car driven by a man with sloppy appearance was getting too close to their car, presumably trying to "steal" their turn to go next in line. Visibly irritated, they commented: (23)A.: Mira a este tipo . . . Look at that guy . . . C : Dios mio, pero mira . . . My God, but look . . . E.: ¿Y que èi se cree que tiene? And what he thinks that he has? (referring to the type of car the man had) The example in (24) comes from a talk show on alcoholism. The exchange occurs when the anchor man interviews a woman who has lived in a household with this problem. (24) Oj.: ¿Ud. ha vivido con un alcohólico, su esposo es alcohólico o Ud es alcohólica?" "You have lived with an alcoholic, your husband is alcoholic or you are alcoholic?" W.: Yo he vivido con un alcohólico. Mi esposo es un alcohólico en proceso de recuperación gracias al programa de Alcohólicos Anónimos. "I have lived with an alcoholic. My husband is an alcoholic in the process of recuperation thanks to the AA program." Oj.: ¿Desde cuando su esposo es alcohólico? "Since when your husband is (an) alcoholic?" The consistency with which PRS employs the theme/rheme strategy is also seen in the preverbal positioning of subjects in exclamatives (25), and in infinitival constructions (26). In this regard, note that lexical subjects with infinitives occur not only in adjunct clauses introduced by a preposition (26a),

198

SUNER & LIZARDI

but also in 'subject clauses', the other non-properly governed environment (26b). (25)a. jpero mira cómo vo. estoy! M+V 68 but look how I am b./Qué calor el nene tiene! how hot the baby is c.!Qué grandes esos guineos se dieron! how big these bananas grew (26)a. Antes de yo irme, me la llevo. before of I to-go, for-me it I-take "I'll take it with me before going." Mama esta enferma desde antes de Rachel nacer. Motheris sick from before of Rachel to-be-born "Mother has been sick since before Rachel was born." b. Es importante uno hacer estudios pilotos. It-is important (for) one to-do pilot studies. Va a ser imposible tu tornar todas las muestras. It-is-going to be impossible (for) you to-get all the samples. Es importante nosotras recoger esetipo de estadistica. It-is important (for) we to-gather that type of statistics. Todos sabemos que es imposible todos ser el mejor. We-all know that it-is impossible (for) all (of us) to be the best. To sum up this section, PRS accepts preverbal subjects when questioning nonargumental as well as argumentai constituents. These subjects can be pronominal or full lexical noun phrases. Neither the Cliticization nor the Case hypotheses are capable of accounting for the widespread distribution of the phenomenon in the way that the theme/rheme hypothesis can. 3.A Comparison of GS and PRS Our discussion makes it obvious that although GS requires subject-verb inversion with argumentai wh's, PRS does not. Moreover, since we claimed that the wh[ + s] - V - S . . . order in GS was a product of the Selection Agreement Licensing (10) of wh-phrases, the natural assumption is that PRS has discarded this S-structure counterpart of the Wh-Criterion. What both varieties have in common is their observance of the universal condition on the licensing of wh's, ie, the Wh-Criterion (8). The interesting question to answer is why PRS has gotten rid of Selection Agreement. We can speculate on this point. The PRS strategy illustrates the workings of two conflicting forces. On the one hand, one has the language specific S-agreement licensing which differentiates argumentals from adjuncts,


199

and on the other, the economy principle (Chomsky 1988) fighting against a 'more costly' language particular condition. It is evident that PRS has decided in favor of economy. Another factor appears to have contributed to this outcome: the welldocumented weakened agreement found in Caribbean Spanish. For instance, the weakening of final consonants to the point of imperceptibility has caused greater ambiguity (than in GS) in the verbal paradigm.7 A concomittant outcome of this is the overuse of subject pronouns. Therefore, it should come as no big surprise that this variety has discarded the language/ dialect particular condition which resorts to head-head agreement for licensing while observing the universal Wh-Criterion, and instance of configurational licensing, ie, of Spec-head agreement. What remains to be done is provide independent evidence, evidence other than that given by the behavior of argumentai wh's, to the effect that GS and PRS contrast with respect to the observance of S-agreement. Two such arguments are given below. First, S-agreement Licensing (10) is stated in strictly local terms. Headhead agreement between the head of CP and V in Agr° cannot be interrupted by another S-marked element. However, note the difference in grammaticality in GS with certain adverbials (27). (27)a. ¿Qué diarios siemprelnunca/apenas lee Juana? which newspapers always/never/barely reads J "Which newsp. does always/never/barely read J? b. ¿Qué diarios frecuentementelconstantemente lee Juana? which newspapers frequently/constantly reads J? c. *¿Qué diarios ahoralestos dias lee Juana? which newspapers now/these days reads J? Since none of these adverbs is selected by V (ie, they are not argumentals of V), why should (27c) be ill-formed? The reason is that, as opposed to those in (27a-b) which are within the Agr projection, the ones in (27c) are sentential adverbs adjoined to AgrP. The relevant part of the structure for (27c) is the following (details aside):

7 See Suner (1986) for details on Caracas Caribbean which apply equally well to PRS. Keep in mind that this does not imply that PRS has ceased to be a pro-drop language; 35% of the subjects which may alternate between [±overt] are null in Lizardi's corpus.

Ill-formedness arises because sentential adverbs are outside AgrP proper (they are not dominated by every segment of AgrP, cf. May 1985, Chomsky 1986b), and are therefore, part of the CP maximal projection. Due to this, they interfere with the locality of the Selection Agreement Condition and hence, the licensing of argumentai wh's because the link between C° and V cannot unambiguously be established. The second argument parallels the first; it is provided by Left-dislocated structures. LD constituents have IP as a possible adjunction site (29). (29)a. Las empanadas. Mara las compró en la confiteria del Congreso. the meat-turnovers, M bought them in the Congreso tea-room b. Luis me informé que las empanadas, Mara las habia comprado en la confiteria del Congreso. L inform me that the meat-turnovers, M had bought them in the Congreso tea-room Nevertheless, they are banned from adjoining to IP when the wh is argumentai (30a), even though they are allowed with adjuncts (30b). (30)a. *¿Qué a tu novia (no) le contaste? what to your fiancée not to-her tell-2s


201

b. ¿Dónde al mismo Allende lo mataron? where the himself Allende him killed? "Where did they kill Allende himself?" ¿Cómo al Rafo lo arruinaron esas revistas? how the R him ruined those magazines "How was Rafo ruined by those magazines?" The explanation is the same as that given for sentential adverbials: an IP adjoined constituent interferes with the operation of the Selection Agreement Condition. Considering that we claimed that S-agreement is not operative in PRS, the prediction is that neither sentential adverbials, nor LD constituents should cause ungrammaticality in this Caribbean variety. The well-formedness of (31) and (32) demonstrates the correctness of the prediction. (31)a. ¿Tú sabes qué a ti te va a gustar? you know what to you is going to be pleasing? "Do you know what you are going to like?" b. ¿Qué al nene le han hecho? What to-the baby have they done? (32)a. ¿A que ahoralestos dias se dedica? to what now/these days does she devote herself? b. ¿A quién en este momento Juan esta entrevistando? who(m) at this time Juan is interviewing In brief, GS and PRS pattern differently not only with respect to the position subjects may adopt in the questioning of argumentais, but also in adjunction possibilities for LD constituents and sentential adverbs. This means that the licensing of wh's in PRC, although slightly different from GS, is consistent with its own grammatical system. Since it does not obey the locality of C° and V with argumentai wh's because it does not comply with the S-agreement condition, it readily allows other constituents to interrupt the relevant sequence.

4.Conclusion After comparing the behavior of fronted argumentai wh's in two varieties of Spanish, it became evident that only GS distinguishes argumentai from adjunct wh's by means of 'subject-verb inversion.' PRS treats both subtypes alike in that pronominal as well as non-pronominal subjects may intervene between the CP projection and the V. This divergence was explained by S-agreement Licensing, a condition which ensures locality between C° and V in GS; its effect is to make Spec, C into an argumentai position at S-structure. However, the (universal) Wh-Criterion requires that Spec, C be an A'-position at LF

202

SUNER & LIZARDI

because of the operator-like properties of wh-phrases. This reasoning not only explains why S-agreement Licensing is exclusively an S-structure condition, but also why both varieties of Spanish have to obey the Wh-Criterion at LF; they must do so so that questions can be appropriately interpreted. REFERENCES Bergen, John. 1976. "The Explored and Unexplored Facets of Questions Such as '¿Qaé tü tienes?'". Hispania 59. 93-99. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Knowledge of Language. NY: Praeger. . 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . 1988. "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation". MIT unpublished ms. 1990. "Uniformity, Economy, and the ECP". Cornell talk. Contreras, Heles. 1987. "Small Clauses in English and Spanish". NLLT 5. 225-243. . 1989. "Closed Domains". Profes 1. 163-180. Davis, Cary. 1971. "Tú, ¿qué tú tienes"? Hispania 54. 331-337 Denevi, Marco. 1964. Rosaura a las diez (Ed. by D. Yates). NY: Scribner's. Diesing, Molly. 1990. "Verb Movement and the Subject position in Yiddish". NLLT 8. 41-79. Goodall, Grant. 1993. "Spec of IP and Spec of CP in Spanish wh-questions". In W. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto, and E. Raposo (eds.), Perspectives on the Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the XXI Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 199-209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Groos, Anneke and Reineke Bok-Bennema. 1986. "The Structure of the Sentence in Spanish". In I. Bordelois et al. (eds), Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, 67-80. Dordrecht: Foris. Heap, David. 1990. La Syntaxe des Questions a Sujet Anteposé en Espagnol de la République Dominicaine: Etude de Cas en Dialectologie Contrastive. Mémoire de Maîtraise: Univ. of Toronto. Henriquez Urena, Pedro. 1940. El espanol de Santo Domingo. Biblioteca de Dialectologia Hispana V. Buenos Aires: Univ de Buenos Aires. Huang, James C-T. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. MIT unpublished dissertation. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche. 1988. "Subjects." UCLA unpublished ms. Lipski, John. 1977. "Preposed Subjects in Questions: Some Considerations". Hispania 60. 61-67.

DIALECTAL VARIATION IN AN ASYMMEΓRYIN SPANISH

203

Lizardi, Carmen. 1991. "Word Order in Puerto Rican Questions". Cornell Univ. ms. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press. Morales, Amparo and Maria Vaquero. 1990. El habla culta de San Juan: Materiales para su estudio. Puerto Rico: Ed. Universitaria. Navarro, Tomas. 1948. El espanol en P.R. Rio Piedras: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. Nunez-Cedeno, Rafael. 1983. "Pérdida de transposición de sujeto en interrogativas pronominales del espanol del Caribe." Thesaurus 38. 35-58. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. "Verb movement, UG and the Structure of IP". Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365-424. Quirk, Randolph. 1972. "On the extent and Origin of Questions in the Form ¿,Qué tü tienes?". Hispania 55. 303-304. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990a. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . 1990b. "Speculations on Verb Second". In J. Mascaró and M. Nespor (eds.), The Henk van Riemsdijk Festschrift, Grammar in Progress. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi and Ian Roberts. 1989. "Complex Inversion in French". Probus 1. 1-30. Ross, John. 1984. "Inner Islands". BLS 10. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. "A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure". Linguistic Inquiry 19. 425-449. Stiehm, Bruce. 1987. "Sintaxis historica, dialectos de America y sintaxis natural." In H. Lopez Morales and M. Vaquero (eds.), Actas del Ier Congreso Internacional sobre el espanol de America. Madrid: Editorial La Muralla. Suner, Margarita. 1982. Syntax and Semantics of Spanish Presentational Sentence-Types. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press. . 1986. "Lexical Subjects of Infinitives in Caribbean Spanish". In O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-Corvalân (eds), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 189-203. . 1994. "V-movement, and the licensing of argumentai wh-phrases in Spanish". Cornell U. unpublished ms. . 1991. "Indirect Questions and the Structure of CP: Some Consequences". In H. Campos and F.Martinez-Gil (eds), Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, 283-312.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Torrego, Esther. 1984. "On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects". Linguistic Inquiry 15. 103-129. Zagona, Karen. 1982. Government and Proper Government of Verbal Projections. Univ. of Washington unpublished dissertation.

PRIMITIVES, METAPHOR AND GRAMMAR* DENIS BOUCHARD Université du Québec à Montréal 0.

Introduction This paper offers a few reflections on some questions that have to be raised before embarking in an in depth study of the relationship between form and meaning, between syntax and semantics. It touches upon two central points of the initial program of generative grammar. On the one hand, generative grammar took a mentalist approach to grammar, hence distinguishing it from the dominant structuralist view and returning to a position closer to the prestructuralist tradition. On the other hand, it differed from this tradition by proposing a formalist approach to language. These two defining characteristics of generative grammar had an important effect on how one views the relationship between form and meaning. Because of the mentalist approach, the question is now an empirical one rather than a methodological assumption as it was in structuralism. On the other hand, the successes of the early formal studies seemed to indicate that there was empirical justification for a component of grammar that would be highly autonomous from meaning. The two main points that I will make relate to these two characteristics of generative grammar. First, if one pushes the mentalist approach to its natural conclusion, then both logic-based aproaches to semantics and global conceptual approaches to semantics are amiss (the latter including all Case-thematic approaches). The semantic properties that they are trying to account for are too situational and do not take into account the fact that natural languages are found in humans that share a great deal of background knowledge. Because their semantic primitives are situational and too concrete, inappropriate material is introduced in the semantic representations in the sense that properties of one prototypical use of a lexical item is attributed to it as part of its meaning. This creates a severe problem for the account of polysemy: other uses of the same I wish to thank Jan van Voorst, Jacques Lamarche, Louise Lavoie, Valérie Lanctôt, Yannick Morin and Christine Poulin for their comments on earlier versions of thids study, as well as audiences at the University of Texas at El Paso, the University of Texas at Austin, l'Université de Montréal and UQAM. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant no. 41089-1452).

206

BOUCHARD

lexical item that do not exhibit some of the properties of the prototypical use are considered as metaphorizations of a central use or as different lexical items since they have different semantic representations. Moreover, due to the complexity of their representations which incorporate background knowledge, linking between such semantic representations and syntax requires constraining stipulations like UAH or UTAH. To avoid these problems, a selective conceptual approach will be proposed in which semantic representations are drastically purged from all situational material since it can be recovered from background knowledge shared by speakers. The second point I will make is that a key factor to the solution to the problems of polysemy and indexing comes from taking into account the meaningful content of the formalism. I will argue that tree structures are meaningful and illustrate the effects this has on semantic analysis with three case studies of the highly polysemous French verbs ALLER and VENIR.1 1. On the content of semantic representations Broadly speaking, Grammar is the study of the systematic relationships between sound and meaning, a relationship which most agree is mediated by at least one intermediate level—syntactic structure. My concern here will be the relationship between syntactic structure and semantic representation. In order to determine the nature of that relationship, one must first find out what syntactic representations look like and what semantic representations look like. In the latter case, that means we have to answer at least the following questions: (1)

(i)

What aspects of meaning are relevant to the form and functioning of Grammar (i.e., which semantic properties participate in the mapping onto syntactic structures and which ones do not)? (ii) How are s-selection properties organized in our mental representation of them? (iii) How directly do s-selection properties map onto syntactic structure?

1 I have chosen these two verbs because they fulfill all the conditions needed to present a thorough case for the necessity of the selective semantics approach over global approaches. Being highly polysemous, they involve a very large amount of recalcitrant data. The selective semantics approach will show how to make sense of that data and it will allow us to state all the relevant generalizations, generalizations that cannot be stated in other theories. The enterprise is long and difficult, so in this paper, I can only provide a preliminary glimse of the kind of results that one can obtain. A more comprehensive study can be found in Bouchard (in preparation).

PRIMITIVES, METAPHOR AND GRAMMAR

207

The nature of this relationship between syntax and semantics takes on an even greater importance in a framework which incorporates some form of X-bar schema, since it assumes that there is a split between geometric and dynamic properties. The X-bar schema expresses only geometric properties (possible structures), whereas lexical semantics is responsible for dynamic properties between constituents (which is expressed by the notion of projection). This crucial dependency on lexical semantics has given rise to numerous studies on the semantic representations of lexemes. One must therefore construct semantic representations. Much of the attention has centered on argument linking, but of course this is not the only role of semantic representations. A Semantic Representation is generally recognized to have at least three main roles: (2)

a. b. c.

represent the meaning of the lexeme provide an account for argument linking provide an account for semantic properties like judgments of superordination and subordination (3a), synonymy (3b), entailment (3c), inconsistency (3d), anomaly (3e), etc.

(3)

a. b. c. d. e.

superordination and subordination: A chicken is a bird. synonymy: A cellar is a basement/A basement is a cellar. entailment: Max is a chicken>Max is a bird. inconsistency: Max is a chicken and Max is a whale. anomaly: female uncle; Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

It will become clear below that I believe that most properties in (2c) should not be encoded in semantic representations. What does one put in a Semantic Representation? It can vary a lot and depends on what one's goals are, hence on your metaphysics and epistemology. Here are a few simplified examples. In a LOGIC-BASED APPROACH it is assumed that a correspondence must be established between an objective world (or possible worlds) independent of any human understanding, and abstract symbols of Language and Thought. This has for effect that all factors that can affect truth conditions must be represented. It can be labelled a global situational approach because such a logic-based approach postulates a relationship between two radically different modules containing elements with very different properties—entities from an objective world and abstract symbols of Language. So all relationships established between these two kinds of elements have to be considered in a unified, global way. Moreover, the goal of such an approach is NOT to construct a

208

BOUCHARD

psychologically real Grammar of a natural language: crucially, it does not take into account the fact that natural languages are found in humans that share a great deal of background knowledge. In a GLOBAL CONCEPTUAL APPROACH like the one found in Ray Jackendoff's work (and in other Case-thematic approaches), we have a mentalist approach, in that the correspondence is not with an objective world, but with a constructed world. It is global in that it assumes that semantic structure is conceptual structure. That means that with respect to the roles of semantic representations given in (2), the tasks are assumed to be unified: the same semantic representations are used to accomplish the three kinds of tasks. Since task (2c) is highly situational and so are the thematic primitives used for task (2a) (be they labels or structures), we have the odd situation where the approach has the mentalist goal of constructing a psychologically real Grammar of a natural language, but at the same time the approach makes very little use of the fact that humans share a vast repertoire of background knowledge. Instead, it introduces this background knowledge in its very semantic representations. This is odd for a mentalist approach, since by assuming that such background knowledge must be explicitly present in semantic representations, it functions as if it did not take into account the fact that natural languages are found in humans that share a great deal of background knowledge. So again we have a global situational approach similar to the one found in logic-based approaches because the relationship between semantics and syntax is construed as being between two radically different modules containing elements with very different properties—entities with situational properties of use in a "real"world and abstract symbols of Language. In a SELECTIVE CONCEPTUAL APPROACH, as I will assume here, language is not created in a vacuum and it makes an intense use of the shared conceptual knowledge of speakers, which is the weft on which language is set (cf. Vandeloise (1986)). This background support for language need not and must not be present in Semantic Representations relevant to the Grammar: it is redundant and it is also not relevant because it has no effect on the form and functioning of Grammar. The selective approach differs from the two other global approaches in that its semantic representations are free of situational notions, hence simpler and more abstract. An objection that can be raised is that such a semantic representation will be so abstract that it cannot distinguish among the cases and so is devoid of "real" meaning of the kind that people think of as the meaning of a word (cf.Lakoff (1987: 416), Jackendoff (1983:112ff) who have such qualms about categorization and necessary and sufficient conditions). Although some aspects of this objection do hold against a classical theory of categorization, they do not


209

hold against the position advocated here. Although very abstract, the representations that will be proposed can distinguish among the cases because, contrary to the classical theory, the present approach crucially assumes that language is not used in a vacuum and makes use of the weft on which language is woven. For example, although the semantic representation of French venir will be very abstract, it can account for what is common to the three uses in (4) because the nature of the arguments related by the abstract relation VENIR gives us sufficient information to be able to determine to what kind of situation the whole utterances can correspond to. (4)

a. b. c.

Jean vient de Paris, (movement) "John is coming from Paris" Jean vient de Paris, (origin) "John comes from Paris"(He is a Parisian) Cette route vient de Québec, (extension) "This road comes from Québec"

On the other hand, the abstract representations will avoid two major problems which derive from the complexity of representations which incorporate background knowledge as in global, situational approaches (logical or mentalist). 2. Two problems for global semantics: Indexical linking and polysemy 2.1. Indexical linking. In a global approach, correspondence is established between syntactic structure and the whole conceptual structure, including much background knowledge. Including such background knowledge of use into the semantic representation of a sentence as if it were part of the meaning of the sentence has dire effects on the complexity of the representation of the meaning of the sentence. Typically, elements appear in more than one position in the representations and are fragmented. Jackendoff (1983:14-15) gives an example from traditional quantificational logic, where a sentence like Floyd broke the glass is represented as (5a), or as (5b) in the notation of restricted quantification. (5)

a. b.

Ex (glass(x) & break (Floyd, x)) Exgiass(x) (break (Floyd, x))

There are three basic problems with these representations. First, there are symbols like & (and) which have no syntactic correspondent. Second, the

210

BOUCHARD

syntactic constituent "a glass"does not correspond to any semantic constituent. Finally, these representations severely distort the dominance relations of the sentence. But the same problems arise in Case-thematic approaches. For example, consider the use of the verb hit illustrated in (6): (6)

Sue hit Fred with a stick. (Cf. Jackendoff 1987) CAUSE (SUE, GO (STICK, TO FRED))

Because of the complexity induced by the attempt to represent background knowledge, this kind of representation faces the same three problems as those noted by Jackendoff with respect to (5) above. First, there are symbols like the temporal tier and elements of the action tier like ACT which have no syntactic correspondent. Second, the correspondence between syntactic constituents and semantic constituents is also very indirect: the argument Sue appears in three different positions in the CS; the YP is as scattered in representation (6) as the NP a glass is in (5). Third, this representation also distorts some dominance relations of the sentence: thus, if order of arguments inside the parentheses expresses some relative order of composition in (6), with the first element entering last into composition, STICK prevails over FRED on two tiers, but does not c-command it in syntax. Because a given argument is typically scattered and enters into many relations in such a thematic approach, argument linking with syntax is forced to be indexical., i.e., some additional mechanism has to indicate what is the appropriate linking. Typically, a list (sometimes ordered) is extracted from conceptual structure and another list (also sometimes ordered) is extracted from syntactic structure; then the two lists are matched up. The organizational aspects of the semantic representation and of the syntactic representation could be almost totally irrelevant as far as argument linking is concerned: there is nothing in the basic architecture of such an approach which leads us to expect any regularities in linking and these have to be stipulated in statements like Baker's (1988) UTAH. There is so much to list in those stipulations if one goes in


211

sufficient details (e.g. Jackendoff (1990), chapter 11) that explanatory adequacy is very low and the outcome not very revealing: the process leads us to expect that the relation between semantic and syntactic structure is essentially arbitrary. One can incorporate constraints like UTAH so as to disallow nonoccurring forms by redundancy statements. But as Carter (1988: 3) put it, "If, however, the redundancies are very great and universal, the question arises whether it might not be preferable to shop around for a theory which would exclude the non-occurring cases on principle."Like Carter, I believe that an approach based on redundancy statements is mistaken and is likely to lead to confusion, because the regularities are more abstract in nature. Specifically, they are based on a homomorphic relationship between the two representations, as will be discussed in section 3. 2.2. Polysemy. The complexity of the semantic representations caused by the incorporation of background knowledge has another dire effect. Since a semantic representation includes some properties of a particular use of a lexeme, we get an explosive effect where a lexeme with n uses has n different semantic representations. Because situational material from one particular use of the lexeme is entered as part of the representation of its meaning, it becomes virtually impossible to relate that lexical entry to another use where different situational material will be represented. Technically therefore, each of these various representations for a lexeme corresponds to one meaning for that element, so that a polysemous element, one with multiple situations to which it can correspond, is treated as if it were many different lexemes, each with its own meaning. Hence polysemy is dealt with as homonymy. Jackendoff acknowledges this problem, but offers no solution. For example, his attempts at solving the problem in chapter 4 of Jackendoff (1990) by using dashed underlines and angled brackets to express optionality fail to express that in Sue hit Fred, the object in motion is a part of Sue's body (and not necessarily her hand as Jackendoff suggests), as he recognizes in note 9, p. 295. Furthermore, as most proponents of thematic, situational approaches, he underestimates the problem of polysemy: this will be clear from the discussion of the case studies below. One frequent way to try to solve the problem of polysemy is to appeal to a theory of metaphor (in a broad sense, not just "poetical effect"). One use of a given verb is said to correspond to its central meaning and the other uses are related to the central meaning metaphorically. For example, verbs like venir and aller will be classified as movement verbs, their other uses being derived from that central use. What must such a theory of metaphor provide to relate these different uses?

212

BOUCHARD

First, it must indicate how one determines what the central meaning is. I know of no proposals that have been made about this in thematic analyses: it is usually taken for granted that we know what the central use is. Or appeal is made to statistical frequency of the uses. Or again cognitive prototypes like "space is more basic"are brought into the picture. None of these are linguistic factors, nor is there any linguistic motivation for these choices. Second, a theory of metaphor must provide precise rules or principles to relate the central meaning to the other uses. There are two criteria that are often proposed to determine whether there is a metaphorical relationship between two elements: similarity and substitution. If Searle and Davidson (1978: 39) are correct in claiming that similarity is a vacuous predicate-it is always possible to find some kind of similarity between two elements—then we are left with substitution.2 But what is substituted for what in noncentral uses in thematic analyses? One possibility is to say that some expressions can be substituted for others, as in paraphrase cases like (7): (7)

a. b.

John shelved the book John put the book on the shelf

However, this is not productive (cf. (8)) and no criteria are provide to determine which cases of syntactic paraphrase relationships are valid at the level of semantic representation. (8)

a. b.

#John shelved the teddy bear. John put the teddy bear on the shelf.

Another possibility is to say that some primitives of a given semantic domain are substituted for those of another domain. Depending on how one deals with such domains, this could come very close to removing polysemy from the realm of linguistics, a move that I would not feel comfortable with, personally. The typical example here is in terms of spatial relations being used to express temporal and other relations as illustrated in (9). (9)

1

a. a '.

John is in the bathtub. John will be here in 10 minutes.

1 tend to agree with Searle and Davidson on this point. It makes the notion of motivation of Lakoff (1987) quite dubious since it is based on similarity: for him, a noncentral member of a radial category is "motivated" by the central member "in the sense that they bear family resemblances to it" (p.65). Degrees of similarity—which don't appear to be forthcoming—will have to be provided to make his theory falsifiable.


b. b '.

213

John flew from Montreal to. Paris. John worked from 9 to 5.

But what do we mean by substitution here? These are not substitutes, they are the only terms one can use in most cases. Moreover, some verbs allow multiple interpretations which are very difficult to relate in terms of semantic domains or paraphrase. Here are a few examples of denominal verbs taken from Labelle (1989) where the interpretations in parentheses do not seem to be relatable in terms of domain differences: (10) a. b. c. d. e.

écumer: from écume 'foam, scum' (produce N; remove N from st) perler:from perle 'pearl, bead' (put N on st; be like N; render st like N) fumer:from fumée 'smoke' (produce N; put st in N) amorcer: from amorce (put N on st; put st in N) clouer, boulonner, visser, from clou 'nail', boulon 'bolt', vis 'screw' (put N in st or immobilize by means of N)

Note that assuming the centrality of space is of no help in distinguishing between subcases like these which are all spatial. As we can see, which meaning is central and how the different uses are related is not at all obvious. The centrality hypothesis also raises an ontologicai problem. To claim that spatial relations are basic and extend to other domains only postpones answering questions about the conceptualization capacity. Since questions will have to be asked about capacity to conceptualize spatial relations in any event, why not go directly to questions about conceptualization in general, and then ponder how it applies to all semantic domains. Although in his actual working out of analyses he seems to adopt a position where spatial relations are basic and are used to express temporal and other relations, Ray Jackendoff is careful to take his distances when he elaborates on polysemy at a more general level. His position is actually quite close to the one I am advocating: "...the theory of thematic relations claims not just that some fields are structured in terms of other fields, but that all fields have essentially the same structure. This structure is cognitively induced: one could not decide to abandon thematic structure for some other organization. It defines the terms in which any kind of discourse, literal or metaphorical, must be framed. "I am inclined to think of thematic structure not as spatial metaphor but as an abstract organization that can be applied with suitable specialization to any field. If there is any primacy to the spatial field, it is because this field is so strongly

214

BOUCHARD supported by nonlinguistic cognition; it is the common ground for the essential faculties of vision, touch, and action. From an evolutionary perspective, spatial organization had to exist long before language. One can imagine the development of thematic structure in less concrete fields as a consequence of evolutionary conservatism in cognition—the adaptation of existing structure to new purposes rather than the development of entirely novel mechanisms."Jackendoff (1983: 209-210)

The intermediate step of the centrality of space is of no use, except maybe for ease of exposition, which brings us back to the first point: the reasons why space is perceived as central. One of these reasons is that a spatial use of a word is generally much easier to illustrate than more abstract uses: hence spatial uses tend to come back more often in examples, but for purely expository reasons that have nothing to do with I-language. An additional problem for global situational approaches is that, if these multiple uses of lexemes are dealt with as separate lexical entries, the Grammar then fails to account for the fact that closely related lexical items across languages are consistently used in similar situations. To give one simple example, why is it so frequent for verbs that expresses movement to also express temporal relations in language after language? In case study C below, I will argue that this follows from the meaning of these lexemes, once a proper level of abstraction has been reached. In short, the use of situational primitives (like theta roles) forces one to include such background knowledge of use into the semantic representation of a lexeme as if it were part of the meaning of the lexeme, which creates a problem in relating the different uses because there are elements in the representation that do not belong. This has both reductive and explosive effects. It is reductive in that two elements with the same uses, hence the same truth conditions, tend to receive the same semantic representation. But, as is well known, these are not psychologically equivalent as we can see in the simple example in (11): (11) a. b.

John is to the left of Mary. Mary is to the right of John.

The use of situational primitives also has explosive effects: a word with n uses has n different semantic representations Since this holds for just about every lexeme, with multiple polysemy in very many cases, the word "explosive"is not too strong.


215

3. A selective approach These problems with linking and polysemy can be avoided if a selective approach is chosen. The selective approach I propose has four basic properties: (12) a.

b. c.

d.

Background knowledge is not represented in grammatically relevant Semantic Representations, i.e. those that affect the form and functioning of Grammar. Semantic Representations have the form of constituent tree structures. 3 Composition is total in that it involves the tree structure representation of the semantics of the verb, the properties of the arguments and the background knowledge. All three contribute to the computation of the situation to which a sentence can refer. So, for example, the SAME verbal relation can correspond to very different situations depending on the nature of the arguments. The correspondence between semantic and syntactic representations is homomorphic. 4

Homomorphic correspondence has important consequences on linking. First, it proscribes the presence of superfluous material both in syntax and in semantics. In syntax, that means that all the nodes should have a semantic correspondent, not just maximal projections: Jackendoff (1983) used pragmatic anaphora as a test for semantic correspondents of maximal projections and Bouchard (1991) shows that nonmaximal syntactic nodes are subject to pragmatic anaphora just as well. As for semantics, it is assumed to be strictly

3 In Bouchard (in preparation), I argue that background knowledge and semantics that affect the form and functioning of Grammar crucially differ in their formal properties: only the latter have the form of constituent tree structures. 4 Dowty (1991: 567) gives the following description of a homomorphism: "Put simply, a homomorphism is a function, from its domain to its range, which preserves some structural relation defined on its domain in a similar relation defined on the range." On the notion of homomorphy in a linguistic context, see Montague (1970), Keenan and Faltz (1985), Partee et al. (1990). There is also an echo of the position I am advocating in Carter (1988): discussing cases where two expressions with the same use conditions are assigned the same SRs by many, like to the left of and to the right of uncle and father's brother, Carter says that they should be assigned distinct SRs corresponding point by point to the distinct syntactic forms. "It eliminates the general problem [...] of why human languages make available in so many cases such widely differing forms for the expression of what the first position claims to be identical meanings. That additional explanatory burden seems to put the burden of proof on those who claim that languages, in this respect, do not wear their semantic hearts on their formal sleeves." (p.31)

216

BOUCHARD

compositional. 5 A second consequence of homomorphic correspondence on linking is that semantic and syntactic structures will be relatively similar, so that for example, the highest argument in the semantic tree will appear as the highest argument in the syntactic tree, and so on. The null assumption, the one that has to be refuted by argument if someone wishes to maintain an alternative view, is that the semantic formatives of the lexical representation of an item are all identified in some way in the sentence where the item occurs. Moreover, there are empirical reasons to favor this approach. Boons (1985) has shown that situational notions like Agent, Theme, Goal, etc.,which are not identified in the sentence by a specific element but rather attributed on the basis of contextual knowledge, are notoriously unstable: given the exact same sentence Jean a enfermé le chat dans le salon, a. notion is present in some situations where the sentence is used but not in others, with no syntactic change in the sentence corresponding to the variation. 6 Such linguistically untraceable notions should not be part of the semantic formatives of the lexical representation of an item. Let us therefore elevate the full identification requirement to the level of a principle: (13) Principle of Full Identification: Every semantic formative of a lexical representation must be identified in the sentence where the item occurs. Full Identification is basically a subcase of Occam's principle. Thus, from (13) follows Carter's accountability requirement that "no semantic elements are allowed which are not given in the lexical entries of the formatives in the surface structure of the sentence''(Carter 1988: 49). There are four basic ways to identify semantic formatives: (1) a node in SR can correspond to a syntactic node by linking; (2) a subpart of the SR tree can 5 In Bouchard (in preparation), I discuss potential counterexamples, like the alledged difference between French flotter and English float discussed by Carter (1988), Talmy (1985), Emonds (1992), among others. 6 Boons observes that nothing is said about what is done to the cat in such a sentence: we don't know whether it moved or not. All we know is the cat's final state: it ends up being shut up in the living room. How this came about is not part of the linguistic information. There is even less said about Jean: we don't know what he did for this to come about; all we know is that he brought it about that the cat is shut up in the living room. Because of this, the sentence can correspond to several situations: Jean could have put the cat in the room and closed the door; the cat could have already been in the room and Jean closed the door; the latter could have been intentional on the part of Jean or not; Jean could have not even been aware that the cat was there and just closed the door behind him with the result that the cat is shut up. Thus there is a wide variety of situational interpretations that are possible, but only one linguistic interpretation.


217

correspond to a lexical item by a mapping operation of chunking; (3) a node in SR can be identified by another node in SR via binding, a relation dependent on branching properties of the tree structure. The fourth case, which I will not discuss in this paper, is that an element in SR can also be identified by being "obvious" and hence not require an "outside" identifier: this might be the case for the copula (COP), which would never be realized in syntax (be corresponding not to the copula itself but being a support for Tense/Aspect). To illustrate, suppose the semantic structure of (14) is as in (15), which can be paraphrased as "Max is oriented towards his being in Paris" (I return to details in section 4 below).

Simplifying for expository purposes, in (15), the two COP and some of the structure are identified in syntax by chunking into the lexical item va. The topmost argument position is identified by linking to the subject Max, the topmost NP in syntax, and the bottom argument is identified by linking to à Paris. Finally, x is identified by being bound by the topmost argument. Given Full Identification, consider the effects of homomorphic mapping on the correspondence between syntactic and semantic structures. For our purposes, homomorphy will map a semantic structure onto a syntactic structure by preserving the relative relations of the elements involved. If both the domain and the range of the homomorphism are tree structures, as I propose here, then homomorphic mapping operates as in (16): (16) Homomorphic Mapping Principle : Dominance relations are preserved. Assuming that a lexical item is a correspondence rule (Jackendoff 1983), there are two things that the rule must specify: (1) what semantic representation

218

BOUCHARD

is an input to the rule and (2) what part of that semantic representation the lexical item itself identifies by chunking. No other information needs to be conveyed by the lexical item: the fact that non-chunked arguments have to be linked to syntactic constituents or identified by a binder follows from Full Identification. What these arguments link to follows from the general linking convention expressed in the Homomorphic Mapping Principle: homomorphic mapping forces the arguments to appear in positions which are relative to the ones they occupied in the SR with respect to dominance relations. As for constraints on binding, what can be bound and when depends on the semantic structure and the primitives involved.7 Homomorphic mapping derives from the fact that chunking is available (presumably due to processing advantages on evolutionary grounds) and from the interaction of Full Identification and economy: Full Identification will force chunks and other non-chunked material to be identified in the syntax, but their mapping onto the syntax will be as economical as possible, hence preserving as much of the SR as possible, hence preserving the dominance relations. Therefore, no specific linking conventions have to be given: relativized linking follows from the homomorphic mapping induced by the architecture of the theory. There is no need of stipulative constraints on linking of the UAH and UTAH type since linking regularities are predicted. Results like the fact that the highest argument in the SR will appear as the subject, i.e. the highest position in the syntax, might be considered as a fairly trivial achievement. But as Carter (1988: 105) pointed out about a similar observation of his, "Even if this is what was to be expected, let us not despise this result too much, since in fact the regularity holds for untold thousands of English verbs, and there is as yet no need to mention anything about the specific semantic content of the VSR involved." In fact, such an approach, which postulates that the regularities are more abstract than the ones described in terms of theta roles and the like, ascribes MORE autonomy to Grammar than theta roles since linking does not depend on specific semantic (situational) notions like Agent, Patient, etc. 7 C-command constraints follow from dominance relations in the tree. In Bouchard (in preparation), I argue that whether binding is obligatory like for aller (i), optional like for briser (ii) or impossible like for manger (iii) depends on the primitives involved. (i) a b (ii) a b (iii) a b

*Jean va Marie à Montréal. Jean va à Montréal, Marie a brisé le vase. Le vase a brisé Jean a mangé le gateau. *Le gateau a mangé.


219

To sum up, linking does not raise problems in a selective approach. Linking regularities follow from the architecture of the theory, in contrast to the usual "indexical" approaches to correspondence which require constraining stipulations of the UAH or UTAH type. Syntax is reduced to the bare essentials of structural concatenation, where every node is licensed by homomorphic mapping onto an abstract semantic structure, purged from obfuscatory situational properties. Such semantic structures provide a solution to the problem of polysemy. I will illustrate this in three case studies. 4. Case studies In order to show what effects the selective semantics approach has on lexical analysis, I will present case studies of French aller and venir. These particular verbs were chosen because they strongly illustrate the effects of prototypicity and use on lexical analysis: in countless studies, these verbs (or their cognates) are considered to be standard examples of verbs of movement. Their use to describe movement is so overwhelming to most that it is taken as part of the meaning of these verbs. This constitutes a major obstacle to a pondered and systematic study of their behavior. The way around that obstacle is to take into consideration many uses of these verbs that relate to situations that are quite different from each other. The three case studies below are examples of such uses. 8 As we will see, many uses of aller and venir do not involve movement at all. I will argue that each of these verbs expresses the same relation in all of its uses. Each verb's single relation can be expressed once a proper level of abstraction is reached. At that level, neither aller nor venir are movement verbs. The task at hand is clear: we must explain why these verbs are as they are and not otherwise. How come these verbs have so diversified uses (and typically so for their cognates across languages)? Why is their prototypical use the spatial use? We must also determine what kinds of primitives we can use in our answers to such questions. The primitives that a linguist uses already tell us a lot about how he intends to approach the object he is studying, since these primitives are the expression of his explanatory principles. If spatial primitives are used, it suggests a centrality of space, hence reliance on situational properties. But situational properties come under inadequate metaphysics and ontology for linguistic analysis. In order to account for the common meaning in all the uses of any given verb and to account for the deep relationships in the functioning of a verb between its different uses, we need lexical entries that are very abstract, in the basic sense of the word 'abstract', "separated from matter, practice, or A much more extensive study can be found in Bouchard (in preparation).

220

BOUCHARD

particular examples [...] free from representational qualities" (the Oxford Dictionary). Exposing the specific organization of the abstract entities of these lexical entries will allow us to "compute"the possible uses of verbs, given the nature of their arguments, and given the nature of the background knowledge on which the sentence is woven. Then it will come as no surprise that pure expressions of relation can be used in domains that are far removed from the domain of space, like time, identity, implication, origin, and so on: these uses are predicted to be possible, with strict constraints derived from their abstract organization holding across these fields. 4.1. Case study A: ALLER expressing movement and extension .The verb aller can be used to express movement or extension; it can even express both ambiguously in the same sentence. (17) a. b. c.

movement: Max va à Paris "Max is going to Paris" extension: Cette route va à Québec. 'That road goes to Québec" both: Ce nuage va de Cd Juârez à El Paso "That cloud goes from Juárez to El Paso"

When looking at different uses of a verb like these, we must try to extract what is common to those uses by removing what depends on particular factors (like those of space, time) to get to the more abstract notions. For example, (17c) could be used in a situation where a little cloud moves from Juárez to El Paso, or in a situation where a big cloud extends between the two cities. But we do not want the size of clouds to play a role in grammatically relevant semantic representations, otherwise constructing grammars becomes a hopeless task.9 Rather, ALLER expresses an abstract relationship which can correspond to a MOVE situation or to an EXTENT situation, depending on the nature of arguments and our knowledge of the context. All these kinds of factors must enter in the computation of what situations the sentence can correspond to, but only some of them have effects on the form and functioning of Grammar. One factor that has important effects on the Grammar, of course, is the lexical representation of aller which I give in (18).

9 Unfortunately for them, AI experts must take such factors into consideration since the computer doesn't possess our shared background unless we feed it to it. As is well known, progress on that front in AI has been rather thin.


(18)

221

Lexical representation of ALLER:

The element  is the antideictic center, that is, the complement of the deictic center, which we can roughly define as the ME-HERE-NOW. As a first approximation, we can therefore say that the lexical entry of aller expresses that x1 relates with the relation COP2" and that X2 relates with 00. Moreover, X2 is bound by xi. Furthermore, x1 will correspond to the subject by Homomorphic Mapping and x1 will be identified by the element in subject position. But that is not the whole story of (18). The elements of (18) are combined by means of a tree structure. What additional information does that kind of structure provide? In order to answer that question, it will be useful to briefly review the basic properties of the formal object 'tree'. A tree is a restricted type of labeled graph. One of the basic restrictions on trees of the kind generally used in linguistic descriptions is the following (cf. Wall 1972, Partee, ter Meulen & Wall 1990, Bouchard (in preparation) for more discussion): (19) A tree is an oriented graph that expresses dominance relations: a node x dominates a node y if there is a connected sequence of branches in the tree extending from x to y. The relations between nodes are therefore oriented from top to bottom, although the convention is generally not to actually indicate this by arrows in the tree graph. There are three notions derived from this concept of oriented graph that will be relevant here: (20) a. b.

Orientation of variables: x is oriented towards y iff x has an asymmetric extended branching relation with y. Branching relation: A has a branching relation with B iff a branch directly relates A and B.

222

BOUCHARD c.

Extended branching relation: A has an extended branching relation with B iff A has a branching relation with B or A has a branching relation with C and C dominates B. 1 0

If we return to (18), the fact that the elements are combined by means of a tree structure has the effect that the elements are oriented with respect to one another. Consider what that means for a sentence like (17a) Max va à Paris. That sentence is built on the structural expression of the meaning of aller, with values attributed to variables—Max, co and the adjunct à Paris— all of this being set against a shared background of knowledge. 1 1 Given a structure like (18), the information we have from (17a) is summed up in (21): 10 In other words, A has an extended branching relation with all the nodes with which it shares a branch AND with all the nodes dominated by these nodes. Hence, extended branching carries on down the tree in the direction of the dominance arrows. As is well-known, dynamic linguistic relations crucially depend on the geometric properties of the tree. For example, feature percolation is generally assumed to be dependent on direct branching. Extended branching governs many grammatical processes, like referential binding conditions, Case assignment, argument selection, connectedness in long distance relationships. The notion of extended branching corresponds to Pullum's (1985) notion of IDC-command: a IDC-commands b if and only if a's mother dominates b. But there is no need to stipulate that such a condition holds on some grammatical process, or any notion of command in any of its guises: if we assume that syntactic and semantic representations have the form of tree structures, then grammatical processes and constraints can only address relations encoded in tree structures. For example, Grammar is silent about the referential interdependencies of elements that hold relations other than the ones expressed in (20): only the context of situation will indicate whether referential dependency is intended or not in those cases. This supposes that there is a difference between the form of the representations of grammatical semantics-tree structures- and situational semantics-general graphs. The importance of this fundamental difference between the two types of semantics is explored in more detail in Bouchard (in preparation). For some processes, there is also a lower bound on the relation. This is usually captured by notions like government. A notion of minimality (cf. Bouchard (1984), Rizzi (1990), Chomsky (1991), among others) can subsume the lower bound of government. 11 The PP à Paris is an adjunct that further specifies the content of w. The fact that such a PP is required in some uses of aller, particularly in the spatial uses (but not all uses of aller. cf. Bouchard (in preparation)) is not a grammatical property but rather a consequence of the poor informative value of w. Recall the discussion of Carter (1988: 296-297), who argues that the entries for go and come should be as follows:

(i) (ii)

LR (go): LR (come):

((A BE THERE) CHANGE) ((A BE HERE) CHANGE)

The variable "here" in (ii) is more informative than the variable "there" in (i): that is why, he says, a sentence like (iii) requires a fair amount of context, otherwise there is a feeling of incompleteness, whereas this is not the case in a sentence like (iv).


(21) a. b.

c.

d.

223

ALLER: organizes variables, such that Max is oriented towards his being at , something other than the ME-HERE-NOW. MAX: since no specific context is given here, speakers assign to MAX a reference which is typical of the most frequent use of this proper name, namely that of a human being, a special type of spatio-temporal entity. PARIS: again no specific context is given, so speakers assign to PARIS the reference which is typical of the most frequent use of his proper name, namely that of a physical (spatio-temporal) place situated in France. The antideictic center  is further identified as being Paris in this particular case.

What kind of situation can we compute out of these pieces of information? The precise nature of the semantic sphere in which the sentence operates is determined by the nature of the actants; here, that is the spatio-temporal sphere because of the typical properties attributed to MAX and PARIS when no specific context is given. If we combine the information in (21), we obtain something like (22): (22) The spatio-temporal entity Max is oriented towards his being at , which is further identified as being the spatio-temporal entity Paris. What does the notion of 'orientation' used in (22) mean? Its presence in (22) is due to orientation properties of the tree structure used to express the meaning of aller, but it is used here to relate entities which are ascribed spatiotemporal properties. We know that the orientation of spatio-temporal entities with respect to one another corresponds to specific "real world" situations. Is this notion of spatial orientation different from that of orientation in tree structures? It is hard to see what it could possibly mean for the two notions of orientation to be different. I will therefore take it that, if two elements are oriented with respect to one another, then this means the same thing, regardless of the semantic sphere we are dealing with. Of course, such an orientation can correspond to very different situations, given that the factors that determine orientation will differ greatly from one semantic sphere to another. These

(iii) (iv)

John went, John came.

224

BOUCHARD

different situations result from differences in the nature of the elements combined, not from different notions of orientation (cf. (32) and (39) below). If the grammatical information provided by (17a), given (18), is something like "Max is oriented towards his being in Paris", why do we get movement out of this? The answer is that, given the typical properties that we attributed to our actants in absence of a specific context, movement is the most likely way in which MAX could establish the relation paraphrased in (22) in a spatial domain. Therefore, I claim that movement is not grammatically expressed by a sentence like (17a): there is no primitive that indicates that movement took place. Rather, movement is deduced from prototypical, extralinguistic properties of the actants in the sentence. Moreover, while it is often assumed that movement is basic and that it implies separation and distance, I postulate that in linguistic use, it is rather movement which is derived from orientation and axis, movement requiring an axis with at least two spatio-temporal points, such as Paris and the deictic center in our example.12 Other uses are possible for a sentence like (17a) which show that movement is not a grammatical property of the sentence. Thus, note that MAX need not at all refer to a human being: it could just as well be a horse, a disease, a boat, a computer or a laser beam, etc. So although the prototypical MAX would have to move to establish the prototypical relation expressed by (17a), MAX need not move at all to establish the relation if we depart from the prototypical case. Thus MAX could extend to PARIS if it were a laser beam. MAX could also be a giant, stretching to PARIS. It could also be the case that we are not dealing with the prototypical referent for PARIS here. For example, PARIS could refer to a point on a map of the world, with MAX lying on the map which we are using to measure him. PARIS could even refer to a period in the past if we set the scene in a distant future at which time Paris would no longer exist, as we could do now with ATLANTIS (for those who believe it ever existed): Max va_à l'Atlantide could then be used to convey that MAX is going to a certain period of time. Examples like these, where the same sentence can be used to refer to different situations, can be multiplied at will: one simply has to depart from the prototypical case. The variations are not due to any grammatical changes: as far as all the primitives of grammar are concerned, nothing changes in the grammar

12 Boons (1985) made the following observation: it appears that there are no "movement" verbs that express a movement on an axis without there being an orientation to that movement, so that no verb expresses back and forth movement on an axis. If movement is derived from orientation as sketched here, then that is predicted since there can be no movement without orientation.


225

here.13 That is the only way to account for productive generalizations like these. One must therefore have a grammatical analysis in which situational primitivesprototypical or not—play no role since they have no effect on the syntactic or semantic structures. It is extremely crucial to bear this in mind because one's choice of primitives and of what counts as grammatically relevant properties has an enormous influence on how one approaches the syntax/semantics relation. It also directly affects one's attitude towards data: if grammatical representation is based only on prototypical examples, then there is a risk of falling a prey to The Swallow Fallacy.14 If we turn to the other uses of aller in (17b-c), we can see that the grammatically relevant relation expressed by aller is the same as in (17a): the fact that the situation we arrive at is different results from extralinguistic properties of the arguments that enter in the computation. Thus from Cette route va à Québec, we get that cette route (= xi) is oriented towards the relation 'Cette route relates with Québec'. Why is there no movement here, but extension instead? Because, cognitively, extension is the most likely way in which a road could establish such a relation in a spatial domain: one point of the road being in Québec, with the rest of it extending outside of Québec (another point of the road being at the deictic center in the unmarked case). Note again that extension need not be the case here: one could be using cette route to refer metonymically to its construction or planned construction, in which case the road does not extend to Québec since it does not exist yet in the spatio-temporal sphere at the moment of utterance. In (17c), Ce nuage va de Cd Juárez à El Paso, we get that ce nuage (= x1) is oriented towards the relation 'Ce nuage relates with El Paso and Juarez at other end of axis ( by the de phrase)'. Why are both extension and movement possible here? Because both are likely ways in which a cloud could establish such a relation in a spatial domain. Summing up case study A, neither movement nor extension are grammatically expressed by sentences like those in (17). Rather, movement and extension are deduced from prototypical, extralinguistic properties of the actants in the sentences. Note also that, as predicted by homomorphic mapping, the

13 That's a bit too strong a statement: gender could change, as it does in English depending on whether MAX is a person or a computer. But gender changes do not affect the properties under scrutiny here, namely the relational properties between actants. 14 "The Swallow Fallacy consists of finding an example sentence—a single example sentence—and drawing a sweeping syntactic generalization, based on the conviction (drawn before any further swallows have been spotted) that what makes that example sentence Good or Bad will hold across a large range of formally similar structures" (Ruwet (1991: xviii).

226

BOUCHARD

elements in the Semantic Representation (18) have correspondents that hold relatively similar structural relationships in the syntax.15 4.2. Case study B: VENIR expressing movement, extension or origin. Consider a sentence like (23): (23) Ce pont vient de Paris. ' "That bridge comes/is coming from Paris" That sentence can refer to the three different situations in (24): (24) a. b. c.

Movement: the bridge is on a truck and establishes a relation with HERE (deictic center) by moving from Paris. Extension: the bridge extends across a river from Paris to HERE. Origin: the sentence says we are dealing with a Parisian bridge; Paris is referred to here as an identifying element rather than a spatio-temporal place.

As in the analysis of aller, venir should not be represented as a verb of movement: it can readily be USED to express movement, but movement is not part of its meaning. The lexical representation of venir differs minimally from that of aller in that we have the constant o, the deictic center, instead of the antideictic center . (25)

Lexical representation of VENIR:

15 As Carlota Smith pointed out to me, as my representation of aller stands, it is hard to see how it would differ from that of study for example. My preliminary answer is that it is only by looking at many verbs in much more detail than I have space for here that we will be able to refine our representations and tease out such differences. At this point, I am inclined to think that the representation of aller is quite on track, and that some additional elements will be present in the entry of verbs like study which make it a less encompassing verb than aller, hence its more restricted uses.


227

Given (25), then in (23), ce pont, the highest argument in syntax, is linked to the xi, the highest position in the SR of venir, and the adjunct de-phrase corresponds to the tail-end of the "orientation arrow"(by lexical specification); so the meaning of (23) can be paraphrased as in (26): (26) "ce pont is oriented towards its being at the deictic center with the tailend of the orientation in Paris" The sentence can describe the three situations in (24) because of extralinguistic properties of the arguments. Thus if the bridge, Paris and the deictic center are all attributed prototypical spatio-temporal features, then, given what a bridge is and what a city is, both movement of the bridge or its extension are possible ways to establish the relation expressed by the semantics of the sentence. However, if one refers to Paris not as a spatio-temporal entity but as an ascriptional element, then a spatio-temporal relation of movement or extension cannot correspond to the relation established between the elements according to the semantics of the sentence: origin is the situation to which it can then correspond.16 Sentence (23) is another case which shows that an important distinction must be made between semantics of the situation and semantics which has some effect on form and functioning of Grammar. 4.3. Case study C: VENIR expressing "ecent" past and future. Some of the uses of the verb venir present an interesting challenge for the study of polysemy. As a case in point, venir can express a "recent"past (27) or a future (28): (27) Max vient de partir. Max comes from leaving = "Max has just left" (28) dans l'année qui vient, in the year that comes 'in the coming year' dans les jours à venir 'in the days to come' But how can the same verb express sometimes a past and sometimes a future? One answer is to say that there are two verbs venir and that's that. This 16 Although the bridge could have moved from Paris, hence its origin, one cannot necessarily infer such a movement from the origin use of (23). For example, most of the components could have been made in Paris and the plans drafted there, but the bridge itself most likely would have been assembled on site and not moved "as a bridge". Cf. note 6 on a similar distinction between what the sentence says and what situations it can refer to.

228

BOUCHARD

amounts to treating polysemy as homonomy. Another solution is to distinguish between venir and the expression venir de. This is more interesting. The question now is to see what it means to make this distinction. If we just list the two, we are not much better off than with the homonymy solution. A better approach to explore is to say that the two uses are different because composition is different. Following that lead, we can break up the question above into two questions: (29) (i) (ii)

Of all the elements that combine in the temporal uses of venir in (27) and (28), what is it that makes these TEMPORAL uses? Of all these elements, what is it that makes these past/future uses?

The lexical representation of venir given in (25) expresses a relation which is neither spatial, nor temporal, nor of any other particular semantic field. It expresses an abstract relation paraphrasable as (30) and therefore, the answer to (i) cannot come from venir. (30) Paraphrase of VENIR: " xl is oriented towards its being at the deictic center (ME-HERE-NOW) with the tail end of the orientation optionally identified by DE-phrase" Rather, the answers to our questions are as follows: (31) Answer to (i): these uses are temporal because one of the actants is temporal (partir in (27), année, jours in (28)) Answer to (ii): whether we have a past or future use depends on the interaction of Grammar and cognitive factors. Expanding on the answer to (ii), I will say that Grammar indicates how the actants are oriented with respect to one another at an abstract level: that is what we have in (25), paraphrased in (30) above. Recall that I am assuming a unique notion of orientation, so that the same notion is at play in constituent trees and in space for example (cf. the discussion of (22) above). This notion of orientation actually corresponds to very different situations, depending on the semantic sphere involved. The reason for this is that the factors that determine orientation will differ greatly from one semantic sphere to another. These different situations result from differences in the nature of the elements combined, not from different notions of orientation. That's where cognitive factors come into play: it is crucial to identify what extralinguistic factors


229

determine orientation in a particular semantic sphere in order to compute the actual effects of representations like (25). I will illustrate by first looking at cognitive factors that determine SPATIAL orientation (since it is easier to illustrate with examples from the spatial sphere). Take the example of the French prepositions of orientation devant ('in front of') and derrière ('behind'). From observations made by Vandeloise (1986) one can see that the computation of the orientation of elements related by these prepositions depends on the following functional properties of these elements when used spatially (cf. also Clark (1973), Hill (1978, 1982), Traugott (1985), among others): (32) Cognitive factors that determine orientation in space: a. Human beings, animals: frontal orientation, i.e., dependent on the physical orientation of organs of perception and interaction like eyes, mouth, ears, arms, legs, etc. b. furniture, tools, cars, houses: functional factors of typical interaction, like side with drawers for desk, normal direction of movement for car, etc. c. nonintrinsically oriented objects (columns, trees, etc): their orientation is determined by interaction with other actants. It is these factors that will tell us what exactly is the front or back of objects like Marie, l'auto or Varbre so that we can compute the situation to which the sentences in (33) can correspond. (33) a b c.

Jean est devant/derrièreMarie. Jean est devant/derrière l'auto. Jean est devant/derrière l'arbre.

Case (32c) is particularly interesting. There are two ways to model the front-back orientation of nonintrinsically oriented objects. In the "closed-field" model, which is the basis of the French and English systems, canonical face-toface interaction is the determining factor. So in (34), devant l'arbre will vary depending on the position of our French speaker: (34)

o —>

z

1

z

n NOW —> FUTURE, hence PARTIR is in the past. (41) Why do dans Vannée qui vient and dans les jours à venir refer to FUTURE situations? Grammatical factor: Both Vannée and les jours are the subject of VENIR, hence both are oriented towards the deictic center. Cognitive factors: (a) The deictic center is intrinsically oriented towards the future in the temporal sphere (39i). (b) The temporal elements Vannée and les jours have no intrinsic orientation, so their orientation relative to other temporal actants is determined by canonical face-to-face interaction (39ii) Result: NOW —> FUTURE and NOW —> l-ale (11) —Kimoun ki genyen? "Who won?" —Bouki / Li-menm / *Li. (9) contrasts lexical subjects like Yaya against pronominal subjects like li: in (9a), the appositive phrase bèl ti abitan an "the beautiful little peasant" intervenes between the subject Yaya and the verb phrase, whereas li in (9b) cannot be separated from the verb phrase. Furthermore, what (10) shows is that li forms a single phonological unit with ale "go." Finally, in (11), to the question Kimoun ki genyen? "Who won?", one can answer Bouki and limenm; but li cannot occur on its own as an answer to the same question. (Limenm in (11) is the emphatic 3sg pronoun.) Thus li in HA, as a clitic pronoun, cannot bear stress and is phonologically dependent. That it occurs before se in (8) indicates that the pre-s£ position, unlike the pre-c'est position, does not obligatorily bear stress. This observation raises additional doubts about the possibility that (1d) and (8) are leftdislocations parallel to (2d).

244

DEGRAFF

2.3. Distribution. Given (7) and (8), the co-occurrence of se and an atonic pronoun in HA is one pattern which is not matched by corresponding use of c'est in FR. Vice-versa, c'est in FR occurs in syntactic contexts where se is absent in HA. Under certain conditions, 13 c'est can precede an adjectival phrase. To wit: (12) a.

Je me souviens que la Noël c'était plat lsg 1sg remember COMP DET Christmas C'+was flat "I remember that Christmas it was boring" (Campion 1984:59) b. Le linge des enfants, c'est décousu DET clothing of-DET children C'+is unstitched "The children's clothes are unstitched" (Campion 1984:72) c. La soupe à l'oignon, c'est bon DET soup with DET+onion C'+is good "Onion soup, that's good" (Barnes 1985:53) d. Les Turcs, c'est fort DET Turks C'+is strong "Turks, they're strong" (Maillard 1987:164)

In HA, as already hinted at in (la), under no condition can se intervene between a nominal subject and its adjectival predicate. Se is barred in the position preceding APs in the contexts corresponding to those in (12):14 (13) a. Mwen sonje Noèl ( * se ) ( te ) lsg remember Christmas SE ANT "I remember that Christmas it ( is | was } sad" b. Rad timoun yo (* se ) chire clothing children DET-pl SE torn "The children's clothes, they are torn" c. Mayi-moulen (* se ) gou cornmeal SE good "Cornmeal, that's good" d. Ayisyien (* se ) vanyan Haitian SE courageous "Haitians, they're courageous"

13

tris sad

These conditions need to be defined in subtle ways, which I will not go into. For discussion, see Burston & Monville-Burston (1982), Campion (1984), Barnes (1985), Maillard (1987) and references therein. 14 Se can precede adjectives when introducing clefts. But see note 13.

HAITIAN AND FRENCH PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

245

(12) and (13) further weaken the potential correspondence between se and c'est and confirm my claim that, with respect to the grammar of contemporary HA, se has achieved a syntactic status quite different from that of c'est in FR. 2.4. Binding Facts. In DeGraff (1992a, 1992b), I argue that se, when cooccurring with a preceding non-dislocated DP, is a resumptive anaphor bound by that DP. 15 Regarding FR c'est, Pollock (1983) claims that c' in c'est is a referential expression subject to Binding Principle C. My claims about se and Pollock's claims about c'est make distinguishable predictions about the coreference relations in which se and c' may enter. For example, Pollock points out that when c'est occurs in an embedded clause, the embedded subject must be contra-indexed with the matrix subject (because of Binding Principle C): (14) Pierre i croit que c'{j/*i}est is Pierre believe COMP C' "Pierre believes that's an idiot"

un idiot DET idiot

(Pollock 1983:113)

As illustrated in (15), se, unlike c' in c'est, exhibits properties of anaphors (as per Binding Principle A). In (15), se is bound in its binding domain by the embedded pronominal subject li and need not be contra-indexed with the matrix subject, i.e. it may be the case that i =j. (15) Boukii kwè lij sej yon enbesil Bouki believe 3sg SE DET imbecile "Bouki believes that he is an idiot" Therefore, Binding theory adds another dimension with regard to which one can differentiate HA se from FR c'est. 2.5. Person Agreement Features. In 2.2, (7) and (8) exemplify one class of co occurrence patterns involving se — an atonic pronoun followed by se — which don't have counterparts with c' est. Here I illustrate yet another class of patterns with se which lack correspondents in FR. Consider (16) and (17):

15

Unlike the other arguments used in this paper to distinguish between se and c'est, the argument presented in this part of the main text assumes a particular analysis of se, namely that in DeGraff (1992a, 1992b). (For other analyses of se, see Fauchois (1982), Férère (1974), Damoiseau (1987), Lumsden (1990), Déprez & Vinet (1991), and Manfredi (1991).)

246

DEGRAFF

(16) { mwen | ou | li }i sei yon doktè lsg 2sg 3sg SE DET doctor "{ I am I you are | he/she is } a doctor" (17) { * moi | * toi | lui }i; c'i est un médecin lsg 2sg 3sg C' is DET doctor "{ Me, I am| You, you are | Him/Her, he/she is } a doctor" What (17) shows is that c'est is restricted to co-occur with left-dislocated nominals which are third-person. No such restriction holds of.se in (16), which is compatible with subjects of any person. This contrast between se and c'est receives an explanation if one assumes that se is devoid of intrinsic person (and number) features, whereas c' in c'est is a third person pronominal. Thus the ungrammaticality of moi 'lsg' and toi '2sg' in (17) simply results from a clash in agreement (φ) features whereas se in (16) has no agreement features and there is no potential clash.16 2.6. Raising. Here I give the coup-de-grâce to a left-dislocation analysis for (1d). In FR, when a lexical DP precedes c'est , this DP is in left-dislocated position, as schematized in the templates in (18). (18) a. DP, ce être+I0 . . . b. [«DP [IP ce être+I0 . . .]] In (18b), the sentence-initial DP is outside of the minimal clause, i.e. it is outside of the Inflection Phrase, IP. Being outside of IP, it is in a non-argument position, an Ai-position. Such DP cannot be raised; cf. (19a). This is because of a theory-internal ban on movement from an Aï-position to an argumentposition (A-position). Such movement would violate Binding Principle C: a nominal (here c') bound from an Aï-position is a variable and variables must be

16

See Damoiseau (1987), DeGraff (1992a,1992b) and Déprez & Vinet (1991) for further comments on the agreement features of se. Damoiseau makes the important observation that se in HA may also occur in left-dislocated constructions and that in these contexts it does manifest agreement features which impose restrictions on the left-dislocated nominal: (i) { * mwen-menm | * ou-menm | li-menm }i sei yon dokte lsg-EMPH 2sg-EMP 3sg-EMP SE DET doctor "{ Myself, I am| Yourself, you are | him/her/self,he/she is ) a doctor" (i) contrasts with (16): se in (i) occurs only with a third-person left-dislocated nominal whereas se (16) occurs in non-left-dislocated constructions with subjects of any person and number. Se in subject position (Spec(IP)) of HA left-dislocations manifests the same agreement restrictions as c' of c'est: compare (i) and (17).


247

A-free, i.e. they cannot be bound from an A-position. (Note also that c' in (19a) violates the case filter.) (19) a. *Jean semble c'être un médecin Jean seem C'+be DET doctor b. Jean semble être un médecin be DET doctor Jean seem "Jean seems to be a doctor" Compare (19a) with (19b). In (19b), ce is absent, and raising of Jean licitly originates from the embedded subject position (embedded Spec(IP)), an Aposition. Turning to HA, the DP preceding se, unlike the one preceding c' est, can raise to matrix subject position.17 (20) a. genlè [ Bouki se yon dokte ] seem Bouki SE DET doctor "It seems that Bouki is a doctor" b. Boukii genlè [ e-t se yon dokte ] Bouki seem SE DET doctor "Bouki seems to be a doctor" Thus, in (20a) (and consequently in (Id)), the DP preceding se is in Spec(IP). In FR, the DP preceding c'est is outside of IP. This concludes my demonstration that there is a class of HA predicative clauses with se that are structurally different from FR predicative clauses with c'est .18 3. What is the Nature of Se? I have argued that se in (1d) is not the syntactic equivalent of c'est in (2d). But then what is se and how should the paradigm in (1) be analyzed? I have answered these questions in DeGraff (1992a, 1992b), which I now summarize briefly. Let me recall the basic data in (1), repeated in (21).

17 For further data and an analysis for raising in HA, see Déprez (1992). 18 One important caveat is in order: note 17 documents HA clauses with se which are leftdislocations. These are examined in detail in DeGraff (1992a). But what matters here is that the occurrence of se in predicative constructions in HA does not necessarily imply leftdislocation. This is unlike c'est in FR.

248

DEGRAFF

(21) a. Bouki (* se ) malad Bouki SE sick "Bouki is sick" b. Bouki (* se ) anba tab la SE under table DET Bouki "Bouki is under the table" c. Bouki (?? se ) dokte Bouki SE doctor "Bouki is a doctor" d. Bouki *( se ) { yon dokte I doktè a | Lafontant } Bouki SE DET doctor | doctor DET | Lafontant "Bouki is { a doctor | the doctor | Lafontant}" In (21), se discriminates AP, PP and NP predicates vs. DP predicates. But the contrast in (21) becomes blurred in at least three cases: (1) when the predicate is preceded by a tense morpheme, as in (22); (2) when the predicate is negated, as in (23); and (3) when the subject is questioned, with the complementizer ki preceding the predicate, as in (24).19 A Tense, Mood or Aspect marker preceding the predicate gives rise to the pattern in (22), where se is illicit throughout.20 (22) a. Bouki (* se ) te (* se ) malad Bouki SE ANT SE sick "Bouki was sick" Bouki (* se ) te (* se ) anba tab la Bouki SE ANT SE under table DET "Bouki was under the table" Bouki (* se ) te (* se ) doktè Bouki SE ANT SE doctor "Bouki was a doctor" Bouki (* se ) te (* se ) yon doktè Bouki SE ANT SE DET doctor "Bouki was a doctor"

19

For further data on se, see Férère (1974), Fauchois (1982) and Damoiseau (1987), etc. Other Tense, Mood or Aspect markers like pral 'FUT', ap 'PROG, IRREAL, FUT', ka 'IRREAL' produce patterns similar to (22). In DeGraff (1993), I argued that HA Tense, Mood and Aspect markers are verbs.

20


249

Negating the constructions in (21) produces the pattern in (23), which is similar to (22). In (23) (as in (22)), se is uniformly absent between subject and predicate. (23) a. Bouki (* se ) pa (* se ) malad Bouki SE NEG SE sick "Bouki is not sick" b. Bouki (* se ) pa (* se ) anba tab la SE NEG SE under table DET Bouki "Bouki is not under the table" c. Bouki (* se ) pa (* se ) doktè Bouki SE NEG SE doctor "Bouki is not a doctor" d. Bouki (* se ) pa (* se ) { yon doktè | Lafontant } Bouki SE NEG SE DET doctor Lafontant "Bouki is not { a doctor | Lafontant }" Another pattern of interest is produced when the subject is wh-moved, as in (24). Throughout (24), the complementizer ki uniformly surfaces in a position preceding the predicate. Interestingly, in (24d), the predicate, even though a DP, may occur without se.21 (24) a. kimoun ki (* se ) malad who KI SE sick "Who is sick?" b. kimoun ki (* se ) anba tab la SE under table DET who KI "Who is under the table?" c. kimoun ki (?? se ) doktè who KI SE doctor "Who is a doctor?" d. kimoun ki {11 se ) { yon dokte | Lafontant } 1 who KI SE DET doctor Lafontant "Who is { a doctor | Lafontant } ?" In (21d), (22d), (23d) and (24d), the predicate is a nominal co-occurring with a determiner, a DP. But (22d), (23d) and (24d) contrast with (21d) by the absence of se between subject and predicate. However, one generalization 21 Relative clauses with the operator extracted out of subject position are similar to (24) with respect to occurrence of se.

250

DEGRAFF

emerges: a DP predicate is never string-adjacent to its subject. Such a predicate must be preceded by se , a tense morpheme such as te, the negation marker pa, or the complementizer ki. I assume that at D-structure, predication in HA is always realized within a Small Clause and that the subject moves to Spec(IP) at S-structure. 22 Crucially, what varies is the internal structure of this Small Clause. I take the lexical heads A, P and N to be inherently predicative.23 According to Stowell (1989: 248), nouns and adjectives — and, I would like to suggest, prepositions — are "pure predicative categories." As such, at D-structure, they contain a subject that appears in Spec, directly under XP and as a sister of the predicate X'. Differently from AP/PP/NP, nominal phrases containing a determiner, DPs, are not inherently predicative, but "have a dual nature" (Stowell 1989:233). They can be either predicative, as in "John is a good doctor," or referential, as in "John met a good doctor" (see also Williams 1983). As suggested by Stowell, the potential referentiality of DPs may be attributed to the occurrence of the functional head D° which selects NP. In DeGraff (1992a, 1992b), I argue that at S-structure, assuming Abney's (1987) structure for DP, [op of its projection hierarchically intervene between the subject and the head noun of the predicate. More precisely, I propose that differently from AP/PP/NP, the subject predicated over by DP is generated not in Spec(DP), but in a position adjoined to DP. (Spec(DP) is reserved for the genitive phrase.) The distinction among various predicative Small Clauses is illustrated in (25) (SC-SP denotes the base-generated Small Clause Subject Position): (25) [AP SC-SP [ A ' . . . A 0 . . . ] ] [PP SC-SP [ p ' . . . p o . . . ] ] [NP SC-SP for... NO...]] [DP SC-SP [DP . . . [ D . . . DO . . . ] . . . ] ] The subject, generated inside the Small Clause, does not receive Case in this position, and would violate the Case filter if it remained in its D-structure position. In (21)-(24), the D-structure subject, no matter what the category of the predicate is, moves from SC-SP into Spec(IP) in order to get Case through Spec-Head agreement with I°, leaving a trace. This trace must be both identified 22

This is similar to Stowell's (1978) and Burzio's (1986) analyses of copular be as a raising verb, except that the raising element in HA is I°. See also Couqueaux (1981) for FR être. 23 Two exceptions: locative PPs may be arguments, and some Ps are merely Case assigners/ spell-outs, not heads (Rothstein 1983).


251

and head-governed, according to the conjunctive definition of ECP (Stowell 1985). In all the relevant cases, identification of the trace in SC-SP is satisfied through antecedent-government by the nominal in Spec(IP). What about headgovernment? Head-government is government by an overt head. I follow Aoun & Sportiche (1983) in assuming that government must be expressed in terms of maximal projections and not in terms of branching nodes. This relation, denoted m-command by Chomsky (1986), is defined in (26): (26) X m-commands Y iff Aφp,φpa maximal projection, if cp dominates X then cp dominates Y. In (21), with AP, PP and NP predicates ((21a)-(21c), respectively), the trace in SC-SP is head-governed by the lexical head of the predicate, and, I° being phonetically null, the mapping from D- to S-structure is string-vacuous. But in the case of predication by DP, (21d), where the subject moves from a position adjoined to DP, the trace is not head-governed from inside the Small Clause because of the intermediate DP node. Neither does I° head-govern SCSP, since I0 is either phonetically null or occupied by a subject clitic, which is not a head. 24 And this is where se comes into play. In order to save the structure, the trace must be spelled out as a resumptive nominal which, being overt, is not subject to ECP; that resumptive nominal is se: (27) [Ip Boukii [I' [ft 0 ] [DP sei [DP { yon dokte I Lafontant } ] ] ] ] Bouki SE DET doctor Lafontant "Bouki is { a doctor | Lafontant }" In (22), (23) and (24), head-government is uniformly ensured from outside the Small Clause by pa 'NEG', te 'ANT' 2 5 and the complementizer ki, respectively, and se is not needed. Thus, head-government by pa, te or ki obscures the distinction between AP/PP/NP and DP otherwise manifested by (non-)occurrence of.se, and the data in (21), (22), (23) and (24) are explained.

4. Implications It can be argued that predication for both FR and English is, as in HA, realized within a Small Clause at D-structure, with the subject of predication moving to Spec(IP) at S-structure (Stowell 1978, Couqueaux 1981, Burzio 24

As argued by DeGraff (1993), the subject clitic under INFL spells out the agreement features (AGR) of INFL, but is not, in a strict sense, the head of INFL. 25 Recall that I assume Tense, Mood and Aspect markers to be V°s (DeGraff 1993).

252

DEGRAFF

1986, etc.). However, unlike HA, FR and English have overt copulas, être and be. In matrix predicative clauses, these copulas head-govern the trace in the base-generated subject position SC-SP, independently of the category of the predicate. Therefore, the paradigm in (21) is not replicated in either FR or English. Assuming the validity of the preceding arguments (see DeGraff (1992a,1992b) for more details), se is not a verbal copula, but a resumptive nominal which spells out the trace left by movement of the base-generated subject from a DP Small Clause to the S-structure subject position (the Spec(IP) position). This spell-out is necessary whenever the trace is not properly governed.26 An interesting corollary of this analysis regarding HA's "French connection" is that HA does not have a copula with the categorial status of FR être. Se, the would-be copula which occurs in HA with DP predicates in certain contexts, is argued to be nominal, not verbal. Furthermore, non-DP predicates in HA may occur with no morphologically-realized copula. Therefore, HA predicative clauses exhibit properties different from those of FR, its lexifier. 5. Haitian and French in Diachrony (bis) Having demonstrated the synchronic differences between HA se and FR c'est , one left-over question is: By what process are they diachronically related? In DeGraff (1992a), I espouse the view that copula-less structures in HA might result from language acquisition strategies. Radford (1990), among many others, has indicated that language learners start the acquisition process by using mainly "copula-less" sentences (see also Ferguson (1971)). The copula is semantically empty: it is often only a tense-bearer (Radford 1990, Li & Thompson 1977) and it does not exert any selectional property over either its subject or the following projection. Thus, the language user loses no expressive power by not having a copula. Furthermore, given that the copula is generally phonologically unstressed (and frequently in liaison with the subject), its acquisition requires robust data. Taken together, these facts would explain the absence of a copula in the first approximation of the 'target' language and consequently in a Creole. As to the process whereby FR c'est was recruited as se to function as the resumptive nominal in certain HA DP predicative constructions, I will speculate on one possible scenario. Li & Thompson (1977) have evidenced that copular constructions often emerge from left-dislocated topic-comment constructions in languages which were previously copula-less. In this process, the resumptive subject pronoun referring to the left-dislocated topic is reanalyzed as a copula, 26

DeGraff (1992a, 1992b) gives further HA examples where resumptive pronouns surface to spell out traces which fail to be properly governed.


253

and the left-dislocated topic is reanalyzed as a non-dislocated subject, following the schema in (28): (28) Topic; # - [Pronominal Subject]/ - Predicate ⇒ Subject - Copula - Predicate Li & Thompson's test-languages are Chinese and Wappo, with the copulas shi and ce? respectively (derived from demonstrative pronouns), and Hebrew, Palestinian Arabic and Zway, with the copulas hu, huwwe and u, respectively (derived from 3sg masculine subject pronouns). McWhorter (1992) further exemplifies this mechanism for Sranan, for the Creole of Guyane and for Swahili. It is important to note that what Li & Thompson call 'copula' is any morpheme "which is not a NP [my emphasis] and whose only function ... is to 'link' ... two NP's" in an equational sentence, an equational sentence being any sentence "in which an identificational or a member class relationship is expressed between two NP's" (p. 419f). In that respect and given the analysis in Section 3, HA se is not a copula since it is nominal. Yet, in some sense, it fulfills the copula function of 'linking' the subject to its predicate: it is both bound by the subject and dominated by a projection of the predicate.27 Interestingly, se is also used as a resumptive pronoun in some HA leftdislocated topic-comment constructions, as exemplified in (i) of note 17. These constructions parallel FR left-dislocated constructions with c'est ; cf. (2d), (17) and note 17. It is thus likely that the use of se in (Id), as a spell-out of the ungoverned trace of the surface subject, takes roots in the left-dislocation uses of se (and c'est). I now lay to rest my sketch of the synchronic and diachronic (dis)connection between se and c'est ... until further strokes.

REFERENCES Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. 27

One might even argue that the trace in SC-SP, which is spelled out by se under the conditions outlined in Section 3, might be needed in all cases of predication in order for the dominating maximal projection to contain a free variable (a 'predicate variable' in Williams' (1980) terms) and thus become an open function. The trace (or its spell-out se) is dominated by the predicate projection and has an index which fulfills the same role as the predicate index in Williams' theory: both indices link the subject to the predicate.

254

DEGRAFF

Aoun, Joseph & Dominique Sportiche. 1983. "On the Formal theory of Government". The Linguistic Review, 2.211-236. Barnes, Betsy. 1985. The Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Burston, Jack L. & Monique Monville-Burston. 1982. "Some Considerations on the Neuter Demonstrative Pronoun in French". Current Research in Romance Languages edited by James P. Lantolf & Gregory B. Stone. 2332. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistic Club. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Campion, Elizabeth. 1984. Left Dislocation in Montréal French. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Chaudenson, Robert. 1979. Les Créoles Français. Paris: Fernand Nathan. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Couquaux, Daniel. 1981. "French Predication and Linguistic Theory". Levels of Syntactic Representation edited by Robert May & Jan Koster. 33-64. Dordrecht: Foris. Damoiseau, Robert. 1987. "Situation de communication et fonctionnement de la langue en créole haïtien: Approches pour une analyse". Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 6.2.89-206. DeGraff, Michel. 1992a. "On the Structure of Small Clauses & on Creole Genesis: Evidence from Haitian". Paper presented at the GLOW Workshop on African & Creole Languages, Lisbon. . 1992b. "The Syntax of Predication in Haitian". Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA. . In press. "Creole Languages & Parameter Setting: A Case Study using Haitian Creole & the pro-Drop Parameter". In Creole Languages & Language Acquisition, edited by Herman Wekker. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. . 1993. "Is Haitian pro-Drop?" In The Atlantic Meets the Pacific: Selected Papers from the Society for Pidgin & Creole Linguistics, ed. by Francis Byrne & John Holm. 71-90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Déprez, Viviane. 1992. "Raising Construction in Haitian Creole". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10.2.191-231. Déprez, Viviane. & Marie-Thérèse Vinet. 1991. "On the Categorial status of the Haitian Creole Particle se". Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of Pidgin & Creole Linguistics in Chicago. Faine, Jules. 1937. Philologie Créole. Etudes Historiques et Etymologiques sur la Langue Créole d'Haïti. Port-au-Prince, Haïti: Imprimerie de l'Etat.


255

Fauchois, A. 1982. Nature et Fonction des Monèmes Se en Créole Haïtien. Port-au-Prince, Haïti: Centre de Linguistique, Université d'État d'Haïti. Férère, Gérard. 1974. Haitian Creole: Sound-System, Form-Classes, Texts. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Ferguson, Charles. 1971. "Absence of Copula & the Notion of Simplicity: A Study of Normal Speech, Baby Talk, & Pidgins". Pidginization and Creolization of Languages ed. by Dell Hymes.141-150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fournier, Robert & Henry Whittmann. 1983. "Le créole, c'est du français, coudon!" Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 3.187-202. Holm, John. 1984. "Variability of the Copula in Black English & its Creole Kin". American Speech 59.291-309. Koopman, Hilda. 1986. "The Genesis of Haitian: Implications of a Comparison of Some Features of the Syntax of Haitian, French, & WestAfrican languages". In Peter Muysken & Norval Smith, eds. 231-258. Lefebvre, Claire & John Lumsden. 1989. "Les langues créoles et la théorie linguistique". Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 34.319-337. Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson. 1977. "A Mechanism for the Development of Copula Morphemes." Mechanisms of Syntactic Change edited by Charles Li. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Lumsden, John. 1990. "The biclausal structure of Haitian clefts". Linguistics 28.741-759. Maillard, Michel. 1981. "'Un zizi, ÇA sert a faire pipi debout!' Les références génériques de ÇA en grammaire de phrase". Rencontre(s) avec la Généricité edited by Georges Kleiber. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck. Manfredi, Victor. 1991. Agbö7 and È2hu2gbö: Ìgbo Linguistic Consciousness, its Origins and Limits. PhD thesis, Harvard University. McWhorter, John. 1992. "Lost in Transmission: A Case for the Independent Emergence of the Copula in Atlantic Creoles". Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of Pidgin & Creole Linguistics, Chicago, IL. Muysken, Pieter & Norval Smith, eds. 1986. Substrata Versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1983. "Sur quelques propriétés des phrases copulatives en français". Langue Française 58.89-125. Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

256

DEGRAFF

Stowell, Timothy. 1978. "What was There before There was There". Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 458-471. Chicago: CLS. . 1985. "Null Antecedents and Proper Government". Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. 476-493. Amherst, MA: GLSA. . 1989. "Subjects, Specifiers and X-Bar Theory". Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure edited by Mark Baltin & Anthony Kroch. 232-262. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Valdman, Albert. 1978. Le Créole: Structure, Statut et Origine. Paris: Klincksieck. Williams, Edwin. 1980. "Predication". Linguistic Inquiry 11.203-238. . 1983. "Against small clauses". Linguistic Inquiry 14.287-308.

DISTINGUISHING COPULAR AND ASPECTUAL AUXILIARIES: SPANISH SER AND ESTAR* JOSÉ LEMA Universidad Auónoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa

0.

Introduction In this paper I address questions concerning the nature and status of the two auxiliaries ser and estar, which appear in closely parallel attributive constructions like those presented in (1) and (2). As such, both have been generally considered to be copulative auxiliaries (Hanssen 1913, Gili y Gaya 1964, Luján 1981, Zagona 1988, among others). (1)

a. Oscar es feliz. b. Oscar es alto.

"Oscar is happy (permanent)" "Oscar is tall (permanent)"

(2)

a. Oscar estáfeliz. "Oscar is happy (limited)" b. Oscar está alto. "Oscar is tall (limited)"

As observed, there is a semantic distinction between the sentences in (1) and those in (2), correlated with the particular use of auxiliary. The same adjectives appear to portray a 'permanent' or 'generic' property with ser in (1), and a 'limited' or 'particular' property with estar in (2). Faced with this contrast, grammarians have traditionally attempted to determine the conditions under which each auxiliary is utilized, in other words, to establish the nature of the connection between ser and estar and their respective complements. This relationship has been conceived in two principal ways based on the direction in which the selectional process operates. For some, the properties of the auxiliary determine the choice of complement; Hanssen (1913), identifying the aspectual nature of the contrast, and after him Gili y Gaya (1961), propose that ser is * I want to thank Ignacio Bosque, Violeta Demonte, M1 Lluïsa Hernanz, Bruna Radelli and Esthela Trevino for commentaries to a previous version of this paper.

258

LEMA

imperfective and estar perfective, and thus that the auxiliary forces an aspectually based choice and interpretation on the complement. More recently, Luján (1981) has considered the auxiliaries as basically synonymous copulas, and attributed the difference of interpretation to the aspectual content of the adjectival complement per se. Bosque (1990) argues that perfective adjectives have a privative aspectual feature; though my concern here does not lie with the characterization of adjectival complements, this author's proposal seems particularly compatible with my analysis of the two auxiliaries.1 In the discussion that ensues I will argue that the source of the semantic contrast correlated with the use of ser and estar in sentences (1) and (2) can be explained as an effect of a syntactic and categorial distinction between these two items, though an in-depth analysis of adjectives is beyond my immediate goal. As expressed in (3), I will try to show that ser has the typical properties of copulas and that it is comparable to English be and French être. I will also show that estar is not a copula but rather an aspectual auxiliary, and that it is the same item as that observed in gerundive structures like (4). ester:

(3)

ser: copula

(4)

Oscar está caminando

aspectual predicative "Oscar is walking"

The purpose of this work is to analyze several differences in the syntactic properties of the two auxiliaries that support the conclusion presented in (3). The asymmetric behaviour of the two auxiliaries highlights a particular relationship between Tense and Aspect that serves to distinguish ser from estar in a formal manner. On the basis of this analysis, an explanation of the semantic differences between (1) and (2) is advanced. In the presence of ser, which is considered a semantically void copula that serves only to bear inflections and to obviate the functional nexus between subject and predicate, following Bach (1967), I argue that there is no aspectual qualification. It is shown that the 'permanent' property associated with examples such as (1) can be understood solely as effect of the temporal and non-aspectual properties of the elements involved. In comparison, the 'limited' value associated to the use of estar is held to be the effect of its aspectual content and of its selectional association with particular types of complements.

1

Hernanz (1991) proposes along lines similar to Bosque (1990) that an aspectual event present in perfective adjectives and participles selects an aspectual phrase in absolute constructions.

DISTINGUISHING COPULAR AND ASPECTUAL AUXILIARIES

259

1. Some Distinguishing Properties of ser and estar 1.1 Equative Constructions. A first general property of copular auxiliaries that serves to distinguish ser from estar is their potential use in equational structures of type (5a), as well as in predicational structures like (5b). The second NP in (5a) can be interpreted merely as an element that identifies and is coreferential with the first NP, whereas the second NP in (5b) is predicative, contributing to the characterization of the first. (5)

a. Your friend is Mrs. Jones.

b. Your friend is a nurse.

As shown by Higgins (1979), predicational and equational constructions exhibit different behaviour in question formation processes. Because of the symmetric relationship between the two NPs in (5a), they are questioned by means of the operator Who, and thus (5a) is a proper answer to both (6a) and (6b), but not to (7) formed by means of the operator What. On the other hand, the status of subject and complement is asymmetric in predicative structures. The second NP must be questioned by means of the operator What, as in (7), but not by (6a) with Who. (6)

a. Who is your friend?

(7)

What is your friend?

b. Who is Mrs. Jones?

Higgins' test can be directly adapted to Spanish, and this allows me to portray a first distinction between ser and estar. Only ser has the property attributed to copulas of functioning as nexus in equational constructions; estar is regularly predicative. An equational sentence such as (8a) can have its second NP questioned by means of Quién "who" and properly answer the question formulated in (8b). However, it cannot answer (8c), where its second NP is questioned by means of the operator Què "what". As expected, the predicative construction (9a), also with ser, can only have its second NP questioned by means of the operator Qué. (8)

a. Tu tia es la Sra. Martinez. b. ¿Quién es tu tia? c. ¿Qué es tu tia?

Your aunt is Mrs. Martinez. Who is your aunt? What is your aunt?

(9)

a. Tu tia es mayor que la mia. b. *¿Quién es tu tia? c. *¿Qué es tu tia?

Your aunt is older than mine. Who is your aunt? What is your aunt?

260

LEMA

In contrast with the behaviour of ser, comparable to that of the English copula be, estar cannot introduce equative complements. As the ungrammaticality of (10a) proves, this auxiliary cannot link two referentially identical NPs; in this setting Higgins' test becomes redundant. Nonetheless, the ungrammaticality of the question (10b) reaffirms my assertion. Estar appears only in predicative structures of type (11a), and its complements are regularly questioned by means of oblique operators. (10) a. *Tu tia esta la Sra. Martinez. b. *¿ Quién está tu tia ? (11) a. Tu tia esta contenta. b. ¿Cómo esta tu tia? Equational structures manifest the lack of semantic content of the copula; the two NPs are referentially identical. The copula only serves to link and equate them. Ser in (8a) does not add any information other than that of Tense and Agreement, and cannot be identified as a semantically relevant part of the predicate. If ser modified the complement, the identity between the two constituents would be altered, and equating them impossible. The previous test hints that estar is not semantically empty, but is not conclusive. The following sections are devoted to show that this auxiliary has aspectual content. As such, if it forms part of the predicate in the sense of Napoli (1989), it does modify the complement and its exclusion from equational constructions is explained. 1.2 VP-Preposing. The operation known as VP-preposing serves to distinguish aspectual from non-aspectual auxiliaries, and consequently to differentiate estar from ser. As shown by Akmajian, Steele and Wasow (1979), VP-preposing allows movement of constituents headed by verbal and auxiliary elements to a position above Tense, except when these have aspectual content. For expository clarity, the properties of this operation are first illustrated by means of English. Sentence (12a) shows that the movement of a gerund is possible; in contrast (12b) and (12c), where the constituent preposed is headed by progressive be and perfective have, are both ungrammatical. (12) Mary said they were cooking, a. and [cooking] they may have been [ ]. b. *and [been cooking] they may have [ ]. c. *and [have been cooking] they may [ ].


261

(13a) shows that adjectives, like gerunds, can be preposed. (13b), with preposed copular be, is also grammatical. This example contrasts with (12b) where progressive be could not be moved. Example (14b) shows that passive be, like copular be, can also be preposed. (13) Mary said they would have been happy, a. and [happy] they might have been [ ] indeed. b. and [been happy] they might have [ ] indeed. (14) Mary said the lobsters would have been cooked by noon, a. and [cooked] they might have been [ ]. b. and [been cooked] they might have [ ]. Basically, if I assume for now that gerunds, adjectives and participles are located in VP, then (15a) serves to portray the movements observed in (12a), (13a) and (14a). (15b) represents in turn structures where copular and passive be are preposed, that is (13b) and (14b). (15c) expresses the fact seen in (12b) and (12c) that a constituent headed by an aspectual element cannot be preposed. The facts represented in (15) can be explained as the effect of a restriction on the scope relations between temporal and aspectual elements. If Tense must have scope over Aspect at LF, as argued in Lema (1992), movements like that in (15c) are excluded because an aspectual element surfaces above Tense. The constraint (16) serves to formulate this intuition.

Before examining the facts of Spanish, it is convenient to present some justification of (16). Consider the process of VP-elision in English presented in (17), and compare them to the facts concerning VP-preposing above.

262

LEMA

(17) Mary must have been cooking, a. and John must have been cooking too. b. and John must have been [ ] too. c. and John must have [ ] too. d. and John must [ ] too. VP-preposing and VP-elision have properties in common. For example, they both allow a gap that is coindexed with an antecedent headed by a verbal or auxiliary element, and neither allow movement or elision of the tensed element; nonetheless, VP-elision is freer than VP-preposing for it allows, as in (17c) and (17d), gaps headed by aspectual auxiliaries. The asymmetry between the two processes can be accounted for directly by means of (16). Under VP-elision there is no movement comparable to that in (15c) that places the omitted aspectual element above Tense, and therefore any non-finite constituent can be omitted. The scope constraint (16) explains the contrast between the two types of processes without resorting to the postulation of different conditions for these operations, as in Steele (1981), or of different licensing conditions on the gap, as in Zagona (1988). The operation of VP-preposing in Spanish has several restrictions, some of which will be discussed briefly. Sentence (18a) exemplifies movement of a gerund comparable to that observed in English (12a), and (18b) illustrates the movement of a VP headed by a participle. The ungrammaticality of (18c), which is almost parallel to (18b), is the product of one of the first restrictions on Spanish VP-preposing. As demonstrated by (18b), the reason for the ungrammaticality of (18c) cannot be due to the fact that haber cannot properly license a gap. The contrast between the two sentences must be due to the presence of different forms of haber to the left of the gap. (18) a. Juana dijo que lloveria y [lloviendo] estaba [ ] cuando llegamos "Juana said it would rain, and raining it was when we arrived" b. Juana dijo que cocinaria temprano y [terminado de cocinar] ya habia [ ] cuando llegamos "Juana said she would cook early, and finished cooking she already had when we arrived" c. *Juana dijo que moriria y [muerto] ya ha[] esta manana "Juana said he would die and died he has already this morning" The peculiar behaviour of certain forms of haber has been previously noticed by Suher (1987) and Zagona (1988). These authors show that subject inversion is possible in questions like (19a), where the auxiliary is estar, but


263

not in cases like (19b) where the auxiliary is a monosyllabic form of haber. Inversion in these cases is only possible if the participle is moved along with the auxiliary, as in (19c). Suner considers these short forms of haber to act as affixes, while Zagona argues that the participle must incorporate into certain forms of haber. The two proposals are almost equivalent. Notice that longer forms of haber, (19d), do allow the subject to intervene between them and the participle. (19) a. ¿Está Juana terminando la cena? "Is Juana finishing dinner?" b. *¿Ha Juana terminado la cena? "Has Juana finished dinner?" c. ¿Ha terminado Juana la cena ? "Has Juana finished dinner?" d. ¿No habrá Juana terminado la cena? "Will Juana not have finished dinner?" Another related problem discussed by Suner is presented in (20). Particles such as ya "already" cannot intervene between short forms of haber and the participle, but can if the auxiliary is not monosyllabic. (20) a. *Juana ha ya terminado la cena. "Juana has already finished dinner" b. Juana habia ya terminado la cena. "Juana had already finished dinner" The ungrammaticality of (18c) is explained in the same terms as that of (19b) and (20a): monosyllabic ha cannot be separated from its participial complement. On the basis of this introduction, VP-preposing can now serve to determine the status of ser and estar. The examples in (21) are similar to those of English (14); (21a) presents movement by an adjective, (21b) movement by the nonaspectual passive ser. Notice that movement of progressive estar in (21c) renders an ungrammatical result, as expected from (16). (21) Dijo que ya habrian reparado las naves en la madrugada ... "(s)he said that the ships would already be repaired by daybreak, ... a. ... y [reparadas] ya habian estado siendo [ ] cuando llegamos. and repaired they had already been being when we arrived"

264

LEMA

b. c.

... y [siendo reparadas] ya habian estado [ ] cuando llegamos. and being repaired they had already been when we arrived" ... *y [estado siendo reparadas] ya habian [ ] cuando llegamos. and been being repaired they had already when we arrived"

The contrast in (22) distinguishes copular ser and estar. These elements behave differently under VP-preposing. Ser can be fronted, as observed in (22a); estar cannot be, as demonstrated by the ungrammaticality of (22b). If the constraint (16) is correct, the fact that estar cannot raise above Tense indicates that it must be classified among aspectual auxiliaries. Raising the semantically empty copula ser above Tense is not prevented by (16). (22) a. ...y [siendo atentos] estaban [ ] los meseros después del regano. ...and being courteous were the waiters after the reprimand" b. *...y [estado atentos] habrian [ ] los ninos de ser interesante. ...and been attentive would have the boys had it been interesting" Further evidence for the difference between ser and estar derived from their interaction with (16), is presented in the following section. 1.3 Long Head Movement. There is a second type of movement structure that can serve to support the postulation of constraint (16), and to distinguish aspectual from non-aspectual auxiliaries. This operation involves X°-movement rather than XP-movement above the element in Tense, and is termed Long Head Movement (LHM) after Lema and Rivero (1990). This type of X°movement differs from Head-to-Head Movement (Baker 1988) by the fact that it skips an intervening head. The two forms of X°-movement are exemplified in (23) by means of the two alternating forms of the Spanish Medieval future, the analytic form in (23a) and the synthetic version in (23b).


265

(23) Amigos, porque beades que la palabra del Evangelio es verdadera, fazet catar el coraçon a este omne et yo vos digo a. que non lo fallar-AN en el cuerpo suyo that not him find-will in the body his b. et fallar-lo AN en el arca que tenia el su tesoro and find-it will:3pl in the arch that kept he his treasure (Lucanor, p. 109) "Friends, so you'll see that the word of the Gospel is true, have search for this man's heart and I tell you that you will not find it in his body and that you will find it in the arch where he kept his treasure" As shown by Lema and Rivero (1990), the synthetic form is the result of Head-to-head movement by the verb fallar "find" and its incorporation into the temporal host AN "future, third plural", as portrayed in (24a). The analytic form in (23b), with the verb to the left of the clitic, is found only in certain types of root sentences with clitics, and is produced by LHM to Comp by the verb, as portrayed in (24b). If my constraint (16) is correct, LHM by aspectual auxiliaries, as in (24c) should not be allowed. As I show directly, the facts support this hypothesis.

Lema and Rivero (1990) show that LHM obeys certain locality conditions. The movement is restricted to the first verb or auxiliary directly below the temporal element. This observation must, however, be refined. A detailed examination of the Medieval Spanish data exhibits an interesting gap in the types of auxiliaries that do undergo LHM. Copular ser and passive ser are commonly found, as shown in (25a) and (25b).

266

LEMA

(25) a. Si tú quisieres que sea yo tu amigo, ca ser-lo he en otro lugar If you would that be I your friend, be-it will: 1 s in other place "If you would want that I be your friend, I will be in another place" (Calila y Dimna, p.348 1.2-3) b. Seer uos an perdonados uros pecados Be to+you will forgiven your sins "Your sins will be forgiven" (Picatrix, 25r79-80) Similar examples are also found in XlXth Century Portuguese, which has a similar LHM typology to that of Medieval Spanish, as in (26a) and (26b). (26) a. Ser-lhe-a amargaa comparaço. Be-to:him-will sour the comparison "The comparison will be unpleasant to him" (Herculano, p. 12) b. Ser-me-â permitido falar-lhe? Be-to:me-will permitted talk-to:him "Will I be permitted to talk to him?" (Herculano, p. 174) Next to these facts, there are no examples of aspectual auxiliaries undergoing LHM. Synthetic futures of the form (27a), with an aspectual to the left of the clitic, are not found (in the corpus examined). Only synthetic futures such as (27c), with aspectual auxiliaries like aver "have" incorporated in T, are seen. The scope constraint (16) explains the absence of this structure and of derivations like (24c), for they would be produced by movement of an aspectual element above Tense. (27) a. **Asp-cl-T b. Ante que él torne, avr-é yo cortado las cuerdas Before that he return, have-will: Is I cut the ropes al galàpago to:the turtle "Before he returns, I will have cut the turtle's ropes" (Calila y Dimna, p.222 1.29) The only examples of haber seen in LHM structures are non-aspectual. For example, in (28a), haber is a verb of possession, as demonstrated by the presence of its object complement envidia "envy". In (28b), the element haber is a modal with an infinitival complement headed by dezir "say".


267

(28) a. & si fuere en la xija.; auer l-an enuidia And if he:were in the 11th; have to:him:will envy "And if he were (born) in the eleventh; they would have envy of him" (Juicios, 218 v 66) b. Ca mucho aina vos far-fan perder los coragones Because much soon to:you make-would:3s lose the hearts de los pueblos e aver-vos fan a dezir de non los que of the people and have-to:you would to say of not those that les demandásedes to:them would:ask. "because they would make you lose very soon the people's affection and they would have to refuse what you were to ask of them" (Zifar, p.314) As with aspectual haber, I find no examples of estar introducing gerunds or attributive complements in LHM structures. The absence of this type of structure is striking given that LHM with ser as in (25) is fairly common. If estar is aspectual, as concluded from its exclusion from VP-preposing processes, its absence in LHM structures is also expected given the scope constraint (16). Briefly, there is a distinction between ser and estar which correlates with my proposal that one is a semantically null copula while the other has aspectual content. 1.4 Coordination. The behaviour of attributive estar is parallel to that of progressive estar in XP and X° preposing structures. The similarity between these elements is also evident under coordination. A gapping effect can be observed in structures where gerunds and the set of adjectives compatible with estar are coordinated, as in (29a) and (29b). This fact shows that the complements of progressive and predicative estar are considered equivalent by this process. Alternatively, the two types of complements are selectionally compatible with estar. (29) a. Pedro estaba sonriendo y [ ] listo para partir. "Peter was smiling and ready to leave" b. Pedro estaba sentado y [ ] meditando acerca de las estructuras profundas. "Peter was sitting and meditating about deep structures"

268

LEMA

This fact contrasts with (30a), where it is shown that non-perfective adjectives compatible with ser, like astute, cannot be coordinated with those compatible with estar, like ready. To obtain a grammatical output, I require the inclusion of the two auxiliaries in the construction, as in (30b). The ungrammatically of (30a) emphasizes the fact that the two auxiliaries under scrutiny cannot be synonymous or equivalent in any relevant sense. In particular, it can be observed that the presence of one or the other is required to trigger the specific reading of adjectives such as listo "ready/intelligent" in examples (30b) and (30c). This question is discussed in section 2.7 below. (30) a. *Pedro era astuto y [ ] listo ("ready") para partir. b. Pedro era astuto y estaba listo ("ready") para partir. "Peter was astute and ready to run" c. Pedro era astuto y [ ] listo ("intelligent") para las matemâticas. "Peter was astute and smart for mathematics" Similarly as in (30), ser cannot introduce gerunds: (31) a. *Pedro era astuto y [ ] estudiando matemâticas. "Peter was astute and studying mathematics" b. Pedro era astuto y estaba estudiando matemâticas. "Peter was astute and was studying mathematics" The conduct of auxiliaries under coordination indicates, as with previous tests, that ser and estar must be distinguished, the latter having properties that allow it to assimilate to the aspectual progressive auxiliary. 1.5 Aspectual verbs. Estar shares several properties with certain aspectual verbs that are not usually considered to be copulas. Examination of this characteristic allows us to further distinguish it from ser and to stress its aspectual nature. In (32) I see estar next to habitual andar "to be in the process" and continuative seguir "to go on". The three verbal items, which are etymologically verbs of location or movement, take locative complements, a trait that ser does not share. They also introduce gerunds, which I know ser does not ((33b)). The three take the same set of adjectives, and trigger their perfective interpretation ((34)). The location of these elements is below that of perfective haher ((35)) and they all take copular complements ((36)).


269

(32) a. Pedro estáiandalsigue en Europa. "Peter is/'is'/continues in Europe" b. * Pedro es en Europa. (33) a. Pedro está/andalsiguetrabajando. "Peter is/'is'/continues working" b. *Pedro es trabajando. (34) a. Pedro estaiandalsigue listo ("ready/*intelligent") para todo. "Peter is/'is'/continues (being/to be) ready for anything" b. Pedro es listo ("*ready/intelligent") para todo. (35) Pedro ha estado/andadolseguidotrabajando/cans ado. "Peter has been/'been'/continued working/tired" (36) Pedro ha estado/andado/seguido siendo cuidadoso. "Peter has been/'been'/continued being cautious" However, (37) shows that the three aspectual elements discussed here differ in some respects so that their amalgamation into a unique category needs to be further weighed. For example, while andar and seguir may take complements headed by estar, the opposite is not possible. (37) a. Pedro sigue estando enfermo. "Peter continues being ill" b. *Pedro está siguiendo enfermo. "Peter is continuing ill" c. Pedro anda estando de mal humor. "Peter is being bad tempered" d. * Pedro está andando enfermo. "Peter is being ill" Nonetheless, the preceding discussion clearly supports my interpretation of estar as an aspectual element rather than as a copula. 1.6 Perception verbs. Verbs of perception place particular temporal and aspectual restrictions on their complements. In simple terms, the act of perception and the event perceived must be simultaneous. Examining ser and estar in relation to verbs of this type illustrates some of their semantic properties. In (38) I see that estar, whether followed by a gerund or an

270

LEMA

adjective, and perfective haber cannot appear as complements of the verb ver "to see". 2 In contrast with this, ser can appear in the complement of verbs of perception, as in (39). (38) a. Su hermana vio a Oscar (*estar) trabajando en la fábrica. "His sister saw Oscar *be working in the factory" b. Su hermana vio a Oscar (*estar) dormido/listo. "His sister saw Oscar *be asleep/ready" c. *Su hermana vio a Oscar (haber) leido ese libro. "His sister saw Oscar having read the book" (39) a. Su hermana vio a Oscar ser más cuidadoso que nunca. "His sister saw Oscar being more careful than ever" b. Su hermana vio a Oscar ser trasladado al penal "His sister saw Oscar being transfered to jail" The verb of perception sets the point of reference of the event depicted by its complement. The latter must be simultaneous with the moment of the perceptual event and have the same temporal and aspectual frame. The contrast between (38) and (39) shows that the presence of ser, lacking aspectual content, does not affect the temporal frame set by the main verb, whereas estar and haber do because they are aspectual auxiliaries. A characteristic observed in (38a) and (38b) is that estar can be omitted, and its usual complements, the gerund and the adjective, can still appear 'felicitously'. The verb of perception satisfies the aspectual requirements of the gerund and of the perfective adjective. On the other hand, (38c) is ungrammatical even if perfective haber is omitted. In a sense, some of the semantic properties of verbs of perception must be equivalent to those of estar. In the following section I argue that the aspectual role of estar is that of limiting the event to the moment of reference, which is the same requisite that verbs of perception place on their complements. 1.7 Some properties of Tense and Aspect Interpretation. The examination of ser and estar presented in the previous sections has lead me to portray them respectively as a copula and an aspectual auxiliary. Given this, I expect the 2

Bordelois (1974) points out that a similar restriction is observed in causative complements. However, Trevino (1993) shows that under certain semantic and thematic conditions that concern subjects, causatives allow aspectual complements: Eso me hizo haber comprendido la razón de tu comportamiento "That made me understand (Perfective) the reason for your behaviour".


271

semantic differences between (1) and (2), repeated here, to be explained as an effect of the contrast between non-aspectual and aspectual predicates. (1)

a. Oscar es feliz. b. Oscar es alto.

"Oscar is happy (permanent)" "Oscar is tall (permanent)"

(2)

a. Oscar está feliz. b.Oscar esta alto.

"Oscar is happy (limited)" "Oscar is tall (limited)"

The permanent reading assigned to the adjectives in (1) must be a product of their interpretation in the scope of Tense alone; in (2), the presence of aspectual estar must alter their interpretation, yielding the limited reading. As I show directly, the permanent vs. limited contrast observed between these examples is not exclusive of attributive constructions. It is in fact a general characteristic of Tense and Aspect interpretation. I restrict my examination to the Present Tense, though the conclusions can be extrapolated to the Past and Future. Examples (40) and (41) present a contrast in the interpretation of the Present Tenses of Spanish and French on one side and of English on the other. The sentences in (40) show that all three languages have the potential of defining events as generic, habitual or permanent; those in (41) show that Spanish and French also allow events to be limited by context to the moment of reference.3 (40) a. Oscar estudia filosofia. b. Oscar étudie philosophie. c. Oscar does study philosophy. (41) a. Oscar estudia la lección de manana. b. Oscar étudie la leçon de demain. c. *Oscar does study tomorrow's lesson. Non-aspectual Tense in French and Spanish can have broad reference to the entire time interval corresponding to the Present Tense. This interval includes the moment of speech (Enç 1987) and other elements in the context can narrow its reference. Sentences (42a) and (42b) show that English and Spanish can limit events to the moment of speech or reference by means of aspectual auxiliaries, (42c) that French does it by means of a periphrasis. 3 Lema (1992) argues that the aoristic value of the English Simple Present is related to the presence of the auxiliary DO. In its absence, delimited readings can be obtained, this is observed in attributive constructions, where reference to the moment of speech is possible: John is ready to leave.

272

LEMA

(42) a. Oscar is studying tomorrow's lesson. b. Oscar esta estudiando la lección de manana. c. Oscar est en train d'étudier la leçon de demain. Basically, the semantic contrast between (1) and (2) is equivalent to that observed between (40) and (42). Bare Tense renders a non-aspectual reading which can be termed permanent; aspectually qualified Tense produces a limitation on its value, which, with the use of specific auxiliaries such as the progressive, is to the moment of reference. A particular property of Tense is that it can confer its properties to events overriding the function of lexical aspect of verbs. The four classes of verbs defined by Vendler (1967) all exhibit this property regardless of whether they are delimited or non-delimited in Tenny's (1987) terms. Delimited accomplishments (43a) and achievements (43b), as well as non-delimited activities (43c) and states (43d) all allow a permanent or generic interpretation. (43) a. b. c. d.

Juan Juan Juan Juan

trepa montanas. cacha pelotas. duerme en su cuarto. ama la libertad.

"Juan climbs mountains" "Juan catches balls" "Juan sleeps in his room" "Juan loves freedom"

In my view, the permanent interpretation obtained with adjectives introduced by ser, as in (1), is equivalent to that of the events in (43). Similarly, when verbs are set in the scope of the progressive auxiliary, as in (44), the effect is parallel to that seen with adjectives introduced by estar in (2). The ungrammaticality of (44d), due to the use of the progressive with a stative verb, is equivalent to that of *Juan está inteligente "Juan is (delimited) intelligent" where the adjective allowed is exclusively stative. (44) a. Juan está trepando montanas. "Juan is climbing mountains" b. Juan está cachando pelotas. "Juan is catching balls" c. Juan está durmiendo en su cuarto. "Juan is sleeping in his room" d. *Juanestáamando la libertad. "Juan is loving freedom" 2.

Conclusion The focus of this work has been principally to present tests that serve to distinguish copular and aspectual elements, and show that these can serve to elucidate several contrasts, both semantic and syntactic, between the two Spanish auxiliaries ser and estar. The discussion has offered an analysis of the


273

status of the two auxiliaries that differs from the views traditionally found in the literature. Whereas it is generally argued that this language has the distinguishing characteristic of possessing two distinct copulas, I have shown that only ser has the general properties of this element, and that estar is better analyzed as an aspectual auxiliary. Ser is semantically empty; evidence of this is the fact that it has no import in equational constructions. Movement operations, VP-preposing and Long Head Movement, showed an asymmetric behaviour between aspectual and non-aspectual auxiliaries; this allowed me to postulate a constraint that excludes aspectuals from taking scope over Tense. In relation to this contrast, ser and constituents it headed exhibited the freedom of raising above Tense, whereas estar, whether introducing gerunds or adjectives, was constrained to remain below Tense. The distinction was explained as an effect of the lack of aspectual content in ser and of its presence in estar. The former conclusion was expected since ser is considered to lack semantic content altogether; the latter allowed me to begin to consider the progressive and attributive realizations of estar as related. I showed that estar shares relevant properties with other aspectual elements such as seguir and andar that are not easily analyzable as copulas. A brief explanation of the permanent vs. limited semantic contrast between predicates introduced by the two auxiliaries was explained as an effect of their interpretation in the scope of Tense alone when ser is present, and of Tense and Aspect with estar.

REFERENCES Akmajian, Adrian, Susan Steele, and Thomas Wasow. 1979. "The Category AUX in Universal Grammar". Linguistic Inquiry 10.1-64. Bach, Emmon. 1967. "Have and Be in English Syntax." Language 43: 462485. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Bosque, Ignacio. 1990. "Sobre el aspecto en los adjetivos y en los participios". In Tiempo y Aspecto en Espanol, ed. by Ignacio Bosque. pp. 111-214. Madrid: Câtedra. Bordelois, Ivonne. 1974. The Grammar of Spanish Causative Constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Enç, Murvet. 1987. "Anchoring Conditions for Tense". Linguistic Inquiry 18.633-57. Gili y Gaya, Samuel. 1961. Curso Superior de Sintaxis Espanola. Barcelona: Bibliograf.

274

LEMA

Hanssen, Federico. 1913. "La pasiva castellana". Anales de la Univerisidad de Chile. 2-28. Hernanz, M- Lluïsa. 1991. "Spanish Absolutive Constructions and Aspect". In Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 1991, Ed. by Branchadell Albert, Bianca Palmada, Josep Quer, Francesc Roca, and Jaume Sola. pp. 75-128. Barcelona: Universität Autönoma de Barcelona. Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York and London: Garland Publishing. Lema, José. 1992. Licensing Conditions on Head Movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa. Lema, José and Maria-Luisa Rivero. 1989. "Inverted Conjugations and VSecond Effects in Romance". Paper presented at 19th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. . 1990. "Long Head Movement: ECP vs. HMC". Proceedings of NELS 20, Amherst: U. of Mass. Luján, Marta. 1981. "The Spanish Copulas as Aspectual Indicators". Lingua 54.165-219. Napoli, Donna Jo. 1989. Predication Theory. Studies in Linguistics 50, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steele, Susan. 1981. An Encyclopedia of Aux. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 5. Cambridge: MIT. Suner, Margarita. 1987. "Haber + Past Participle". Linguistic Inquiry 18.683690. Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Treviho, Esthela. 1993. Minimalidad en las construcciones causativas del espanol. Ph.D. dissertation, El Colegio de México, México. Vendier, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Zagona, Karen. 1988. Verb Phrase Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

THE VP-INTERNAL SUBJECT HYPOTHESIS AND SPANISH SENTENCE STRUCTURE* ERRAPEL MEJÍAS-BIKANDI University of Nebraska-Lincoln 0. In this paper I motivate the claim that a preverbal subject in Spanish may appear in two different structural positions (at least) at S-structure: one of these positions is outside the VP and the other is inside the VP. I will identify these positions with Spec(I) and Spec(V) respectively. Throughout the paper, I will refer to this claim as Hypothesis A, which can be formulated as follows: Hypothesis A. In Spanish declarative sentences, a preverbal subject may appear either in Spec(I) or in Spec(V) at S-structure. In addition, the paper shows that: i) the structural position of the subject affects its interpretation, and ii) the semantic class to which a predicate belongs (whether the predicate is stage-level or individual-level; cf. Carlson 1977, 1980) determines the structural position of the subject at S-structure. The paper is significant in two respects. First, it provides evidence for some of the claims of the so-called VP-internal subject hypothesis (Fukui and Speas 1986, Kitagawa 1986, Kuroda 1988, among others). In particular, the paper supports the claim that VP is not a defective category with respect to X'-Theory (cf. Kuroda ibid.), and that the grammatical subject may appear in Spec(V) at some level of representation. Second, the paper points out the extent to which semantic notions are structurally encoded in Spanish. The paper is organized in the following way. In the first section, I state the distribution of the different readings (generic or existential) of indefinite NPs of the form un/a N "a N" in Spanish. I show that this distribution can be accounted for by assuming that a preverbal subject may appear either in Spec(V) or Spec(I) at S-structure, in other words, by assuming Hypothesis A. * I would like to thank Raul Aranovich, Kathy Carey, Aintzane Doiz-Bienzobas, Gorka Elordieta, Jon Franco, Yuki Kuroda and Maura Velázquez for helpful comments. The usual disclaimers apply.

276

MEJIAS-BIKANDI

Independent evidence for this hypothesis is provided in section 2, in which I discuss the phenomenon of control into adjunct adverbial clauses in Spanish. In section 3, I examine some grammatical manifestations of the stage/individual-level distinction in Spanish and argue that such a distinction has structural consequences. In particular, I will claim that subjects of individual-level predicates must appear in Spec(I) at S-structure whereas subjects of stage-level predicates may appear inside or outside the VP at Sstructure. Finally, in section 4,1 make some concluding remarks.1 1. In this section, I will discuss the problem of how to account for the distribution of the different readings (existential or generic) of indefinite NPs of the form un/a N "a N" in Spanish. I claim that this distribution can be accounted for by assuming: i) Diesing's account of the distribution of the readings of bare plurals in English and German (Diesing, 1988, 1989), and ii) that the preverbal subject in Spanish may appear inside or outside the VP (Hypothesis A). First I will describe the facts in Spanish that need to be accounted for. Then, I will give a brief summary of Diesing's analysis of the distribution of the different readings of bare plurals in English. Finally, I will show how the facts about Spanish can be accounted for by assuming i) and ii) above. 1.1. Indefinite NPs of the form un/a N "a N" may be ambiguous in Spanish, as (1) demonstrates:2 (1) Un tren llega al andén A train arrive-3sg-present at the platform "A train (generic/existential) arrives at the platform" Sentence (1) is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as a statement about trains in general (generic reading) or as a statement about a particular train (existential reading). 3 However, in some contexts the ambiguity exemplified in (1) does 1

Subjects are not the only constituents that may appear preverbally in Spanish. In this paper I am restricting the discussion to grammatical subjects. However, the claims in the paper can be easily made more general so that they apply to other arguments of the verb besides the subject. 2 I will use the following abbreviations: pret=preterite, inf=infinitive, sg=singular, pl=plural, ger=gerund. 3 There is an additional non-generic reading of (1) that I will not consider. Under this additional reading, the indefinite un tren "a train" is interpreted like the NP uno de los trenes "one of the trains". This reading presupposes that a particular set of trains is under consideration, out of which the speaker selects out a particular train. It is interesting to notice that this additional non-generic reading has the same distribution as the generic reading.

THE VP-INTERNAL SUBJECT HYPOTHESIS AND SPANISH

277

not exist. For instance, when the indefinite subject appears postverbally, only the existential reading is possible, as is shown in (2): (2) Llega un tren al andén Arrive-3sg-present a train at the platform "A train (existential) is arriving at the platform" Also, in cases where an adverb appears between the subject and the verb, only the generic reading is possible, as (4) shows: (3) Un hombre lava platos A man wash-3sg-present dish-pl "A man (existential/generic) is washing/washes the dishes" (4) Un hombre apenas lava platos A man hardly wash-3sg-present dish-pl "A man (generic) hardly (ever) washes dishes" The only difference between sentences (3) and (4) is that in (4) the adverb apenas "hardly" appears between the subject and the verb. This formal difference is paralleled by a difference in interpretation: sentence (3) is ambiguous (existential or generic) whereas sentence (4) is not (generic only). Sentences (l)-(4) illustrate three facts that need to be explained: Fact I- a postverbal indefinite subject must be existential (sentence (2)); Fact II- a preverbal indefinite subject separated from the verb by an adverb must be generic (sentence (4)); and Fact III- a preverbal indefinite subject that immediately precedes the verb may be generic or existential (sentences (1) and (3)). Before providing an account of Facts I-HI, I will sketch Diesing's analysis of bare plurals in English and German. 1.2. Diesing (1988, 1989) claims that the different readings (generic or existential) of the bare plural in English can be predicted by the structural position of the bare plural at D-structure. The core of her analysis is as follows. Assuming a logical representation along the lines of Heim 1982, Diesing claims that material outside the VP at LF appears in the Restrictive Clause in the logical representation, whereas material inside the VP is part of the Nuclear Scope. In the absence of an overt quantifier, variables in the Restrictive Clause are bound by a default quantifier Gen (generic). Free variables in the Nuclear Scope are bound by an existential quantifier, the result of a process of Existential Closure. Bare nouns introduce variables in the logical representation. A bare noun that is generated in Spec(I) appears outside the VP

278

MEJIAS-BIKANDI

at LF and is part of the Restrictive Clause in the logical representation. Consequently, the corresponding variable is bound by Gen, and the generic reading is obtained. This is illustrated in (5), where only a generic interpretation of the bare noun "lions" is possible: (5) a. Lions have manes b. [Ip Lionsi [Vp PROi have manes]] c. Gen [x is a lion] By mane(y) & has(x, y) Under Diesing's analysis, the syntactic representation of (5a) is (5b), and the corresponding logical representation (5c). The subject in (5b) is generated in Spec(I), and it is coindexed with a PRO in Spec(V). The bare NP appears in Spec(I) at LF. Thus, it is part of the Restrictive Clause in the logical representation in (5c), where the corresponding variable is bound by the default quantifier Gen. Consequently, we obtain only a generic reading of (5a). Consider now the case in which a bare noun is generated in Spec(V). This NP must move to Spec(I) in order to receive case. However, following May 1985, Diesing assumes that a NP that is raised to Spec(I) can be lowered to Spec(V) at LF for the purposes of interpretation. Consequently, it may be part of the Nuclear Scope in the logical representation and the corresponding variable may be bound by 3. This is illustrated in (6), where an existential reading of the bare noun is possible: (6) a. Cows are in my backyard b. [Ip Cowsi [vp ei are in my backyard]] c. 3x cow(x) & in-my-backyard(x) (6b) is the syntactic representation of (6a) and (6c) the corresponding logical representation. In (6b) the subject is generated in Spec(V) and moves to Spec(I) in order to receive case. This bare noun is lowered to Spec(V) at LF. Material within the VP at LF appears in the Nuclear Scope in the logical representation. Thus, the corresponding variable is bound by the existential quantifier (the result of Existential Closure), as in (6c), and the existential reading of (6a) is obtained.4 In the analysis sketched above, different semantic interpretations of a subject are the result of different structural positions of the subject at the relevant level of representation. In English, the relevant level of representation 4

This analysis predicts that there should be a generic reading of (6a). Diesing (1988) claims that such a generic reading is indeed possible, although pragmatically odd.


279

is LF. However, Diesing claims that, for German, S-structure is the relevant level to determine the interpretation of the subject. This difference between English and German is due to the claim that subjects in German do not need to appear in Spec(I) at S-structure in order to receive case. Spanish is similar to German in this respect. It has been claimed that subjects in Spanish need not appear in Spec(I) at S-structure (cf. Bordelois 1974, Groos and Bok-Bennema 1986, Contreras 1987). Consequently, if we adopt Diesing's analysis for Spanish, we predict that the structural position of the indefinite subject at Sstructure will determine its interpretation. In other words, in the logical representation, material outside the VP at S-structure is going to form the Restrictive Clause, whereas material inside the VP at S-structure is going to be part of the Nuclear Scope. I will refer to this analysis, which is the extension of Diesing's analysis into Spanish, as Hypothesis B: Hypothesis B In Spanish, material outside the VP at S-structure is part of the Restrictive Clause in the logical representation. Material inside the VP at S-structure is part of the Nuclear Scope. In the next section I show that Facts I-III can be accounted for under hypotheses A and B. This will be taken as an argument in support of these two hypotheses. 1.3. Consider first Fact I: postverbal indefinite subjects must be interpreted as existential (sentence (2)). Postverbal subjects are standardly assumed to be within the VP at S-structure. Since the indefinite is within the VP at S-structure, Hypothesis B predicts that the corresponding variable will be within the nuclear scope in the logical representation, and consequently bound by 3. Thus, only the existential interpretation may be obtained.5 Consider Fact II: an adverb between an indefinite subject and the verb forces a generic interpretation of the indefinite subject (sentence (4)). I will assume that adverbs appear in phrasal boundaries (a similar assumption is made by Diesing for German; cf. Diesing 1988). Thus, in a sentence such as as (4), the adverb must appear attached to the VP, and, therefore, the subject must be 5

Grant Goodall has brought to my attention sentences such as (i) ¿Cuánto vino bebe un hombre? "How much wine does a man drink?", where the indefinite is postverbal and interpreted as generic. The discussion above was restricted to declarative sentences in Spanish. For sentences such as (i), I would assume a rule of verb preposing in wh-questions (cf. Torrego 1984) in Spanish. Thus, the fact that the indefinite is postverbal in wh-questions does not necessarily mean that the indefinite is within the VP.

280

MEJIAS-BIKANDI

outside the VP. Consequently, Hypothesis B predicts that the corresponding variable is in the Restrictive Clause in the logical representation and bound by Gen. 6 Finally, consider Fact III: preverbal indefinite subjects that immediately precede the verb may generally be existential or generic (sentences (1) and (3)). Working under Hypothesis A, we must assume that preverbal subjects may appear either in Spec(I) or in Spec(V) at S-structure. Thus, sentences such as (1) are potentially structurally ambiguous: there is nothing in the form of this sentence that indicates whether the subject is in Spec(I) or Spec(V). Consequently, the claim can be made that sentences such as (1) and (4) are in fact structurally ambiguous. Thus, their semantic ambiguity is the result of this structural ambiguity: under the generic reading, the subject appears in Spec(I) at S- structure; under the existential reading, the subject appears in Spec(V) at Sstructure. I have shown that by assuming Hypothesis A and Hypothesis B, we can give an account of Facts I-III. I will take this as evidence supporting both that a preverbal subject may appear within the VP or outside the VP (Hypothesis A) and that the position of the subject at S-structure determines its interpretation (Hypothesis B). In the next section I introduce some data that provide additional evidence for Hypothesis A. 2. In section 1, I claimed that an existential indefinite subject must appear within the VP at S-structure. This claim points out the existence of two classes of subjects in Spanish. One class, which I will call Class I, is constituted by existential indefinite subjects and postverbal subjects. These subjects appear within the VP at S-structure. The other class, which I will call Class II, is constituted by preverbal subjects that are not existential indefinites. These subjects need not appear within the VP at S-structure. Given this characterization, we would expect to find a phenomenon with respect to which subjects of Class I behave as a natural class and differently from subjects of Class II. If such a phenomenon was found, and the difference in behavior between the two different classes of subjects was amenable to a structural explanation, then we would have independent evidence for Hypothesis A (and for Hypothesis B). In this section I show that control into adjunct adverbial clauses in Spanish is such a phenomenon. 6 The sentence in (4) illustrates a "scarcely" adverb, apenas "hardly". "Scarcely" adverbs have been argued to appear in Spec(V) at S-structure (Zagona 1988). Assuming Zagona's analysis would result in the same prediction with respect to the reading of the indefinite in (4): since the adverb is in Spec(V), the subject must be in Spec(I), assuming Hypothesis A.


281

2.1. An adverbial adjunct clause may appear at the end of a sentence in Spanish. When this is the case, either a definite preverbal subject (sentence (7)), a postverbal subject (sentence (8)), or a preverbal subject that is an existential indefinite (sentence (9)), can control the NP PRO in the adjunct clause: (7) El ladrón se escondió aqui después de PRO robar el banco the thief 3sg-refl hid-3sg-pret here after PRO rob-inf the bank "The thief hid here after PRO robbing the bank" (8)Se escondió el ladrón aqui después de PRO robar el banco 3sg-refl hid-3sg-pret the thief here after PRO rob-inf the bank "The thief hid here after robbing the bank" (9) Un ladrón se escondió aqui después de PRO robar el banco a thief 3sg-refl hid-3sg-pret here after PRO rob-inf the bank "A thief hid here after PRO robbing the bank" The adjunct clause may also appear sentence initially. However, when this is the case, subjects of Class I cannot control the NP PRO in the adjunct clause, whereas subjects of Class II can be the controllers of the NP PRO in the adjunct clause. In other words, neither a postverbal subject (sentence (11)) nor a preverbal subject that is an existential indefinite (sentence (12)) can be the controllers, whereas a preverbal subject that is not existential indefinite can control the NP PRO, as in (10): (10) Después de PRO robar el banco, el ladrón se escondió aqui after PRO rob-inf the bank the thief 3sg-refl hid-3sg-pret here "After PRO the bank, the thief hid here" (11)??Después de PRO robar el banco, se escondió el ladrón aqui after PRO rob-inf the bank 3sg-refl hid-3sg-pret the thief here "After PRO robbing the bank, the thief hid here" (12)??Después de PRO robar el banco, un ladrón se escondió aqui after PRO rob-inf the bank a thief 3sg-refl hid-3sg-pret here "After PRO robbing the bank, a thief hid here"

282

MEJIAS-BIKANDI

Examples (7)-(12) illustrate a phenomenon with respect to which the two classes of subjects characterized above show a different behavior: subjects of Class II can control the NP PRO of a sentence initial adjunct clause, as in sentence (10), whereas subjects of Class I cannot, as in sentences (11) and (12). Under Hypothesis A and B, (11) and (12) are structurally different from (10), namely, in (10) the subject may be assumed to be in Spec(I) at Sstructure, whereas in (11) and (12) the subject must be within the VP. In this section, I show that the difference in grammaticality between (10) on the one hand and (11) and (12) on the other follows from their different structural representations and that, consequently, the data in (7)-(12) provides additional evidence for the claim that preverbal subjects in Spanish may appear in two different structural positions (Hypothesis A). In order to do so, I will first argue that a postposed adjunct adverbial clause, as illustrated in (7)-(9), may appear adjoined to YP, whereas a preposed adjunct clause, as in (10)-(12), must be adjoined to IP. As a consequence of these facts, the ungrammaticality of (11) and (12) will be shown to be the result of the failure of the controller, the subject, to c-command the NP PRO. 2.2. Consider sentences (13) and (14) below: (13) Después de PRO comer, Maria fue al cine after PRO eat-inf Mary go-3sg-pret to the cinema "After eating, Mary went to the movies" (14) Maria fue al cine después de PRO comer Mary go-3sg-pret to the cinema after PRO eat-inf "Mary went to the movies after eating" In (13) the adjunct clause appears sentence initially. Phonetically, it is separated from the main clause by a pause. In (14) the adjunct clause appears sentence finally and there is no pause between the main clause and the adjunct clause. I want to argue that the structure of (13) is as in (13'), where the adjunct is adjoined to IP, whereas the structure of (14), at least in one reading of (14), is as in (14'), where the adjunct is adjoined to VP: (13') [ip Después de PRO comer [IP Maria fue al cine]] (14') [ip Maria [Vp [vp fue al cine] después de PRO comer]]


283

Besides the intonational difference pointed out above, there are other differences between (13) and (14). First, only (14) can be a natural answer to a question such as (15): (15) ¿Qué hizo Maria? What do-3sg-pret Mary "What did Mary do?" When (14) is an answer to (15), the speaker attributes to Mary the property of 'having gone to the movies after eating'. With this interpretation, the predicate in (14) is 'went to the movies after eating'. If we assume that the predicate corresponds to the VP in the structural representation (cf. Williams 1980), then the adjunct clause in (14) must be part of the VP, since the adjunct clause is part of the predicate. On the other hand, (13) cannot be an answer to (15). (13) can be an answer to (16): (16) ¿Qué hizo Maria después de PRO comer? What do-3sg-pret Mary after PRO eat-inf "What did Mary do after eating?" Thus, we can conclude that the adjunct clause is not part of the VP in (13), since the adjunct clause is not intended to be part of the predicate of the subject "Mary". Consider also the following sentences: (16) Después de PRO comprar un libro, Maria probablemente fue al cine After PRO buy-inf a book Mary probably go-3sg-pret to the cinema "After buying a book, Mary probably went to the movies" (17) Maria probablemente fue al cine después de PRO comprar un libro Mary probably go-3sg-pret to the cinema after PRO buy-inf a book "Mary probably went to the movies after buying a book" In (16) the adjunct clause is outside the scope of "probably". On the other hand, there is an interpretation of (17) under which the adjunct clause is within the scope of "probably"; that is, there is an interpretation of (17) in which the speaker does not know for sure that Mary bought a book. I assume the definition of scope in May (1985), according to which the scope of a is the set of nodes that a c-commands at LF. We can account for the interpretation of

284

MEJIAS-BIKANDI

(16), assuming a S-structure representation such as (16'), where probablemente "probably" is adjoined to VP, and the adjunct clause is adjoined to IP: (16') [Ip Después de PRO comprar un libro [IP Maria [Vp probablemente [vp fite al cine]]]] In (16') , the predicate fue al cine "went to the movies" is within the scope of probablemente, but the adjunct clause is not. In (17), on the other hand, the adjunct clause may be within the scope of probablemente "probably", as we saw above, whereas the subject is not. Thus, it must be the case that, under the relevant interpretation, the adjunct clause is not adjoined to IP. A representation that produces the desired interpretation is that in (17'), where the adjunct clause is adjoined to VP: (17') [Ip Maria [vp probablemente [vp fue al cine después de PRO comprar un libro]]] In (17') both fue al cine "went to the movies" and the adjunct clause are ccommanded by and, consequently, within the scope of, probablemente "probably". The discussion above motivates the claim that a sentence final adjunct may be adjoined to the VP, whereas an adjunct clause that appears sentence initially must be adjoined to the IP. In the next section, I will account for the ungrammaticality of (9) and (10). 2.3. Consider sentences (10)-(12). Assuming hypotheses A and B and the claim made in section 2.2, the representation of these sentences is as in (10')(12') respectively: (10') [Ip Después de PRO robar el banco [Ip el ladrón [Vp se escondió aqui]]] (11') [Ip Después de PRO robar el banco [Ip [yp se escondió el ladrón aqui]]] (12') [Ip Después de PRO robar el banco [IP [VP un ladrón se escondió aqui]]] It is standardly assumed that in control structures the controller must ccommand the NP PRO. I will assume the May 1985 definition of c-command: a c-commands ß iff every maximal projection dominating a dominates ß, and a does not dominate ß. Also, I will assume, departing from May 1985, that for a maximal projection y to dominate ß it is sufficient that one member node of y dominates ß. Assuming these definitions and the representations (10')- (12'),


285

the subject in (11') and (12') does not c-command the NP PRO in the adjunct clause. On the other hand, the subject in (10') c-commands the NP PRO in the adjunct clause. Consequently, we predict that in sentences (11) and (12), but not in sentence (10), it is difficult to interpret the subject of the main clause as the subject of the adjunct clause. Consider now sentences (7)-(9). The representation of these sentences under the relevant assumptions is as in (7')-(9'): (7')[ Ip El ladrón [vp [vp se escondió aqui] después de PRO robar el banco]] (8') [Ip [vp [VP Se escondió el ladrón aqui] después de PRO robar el banco]] (9') [Ip [VP [VP Un ladrón se escondió aqui] después de PRO robar un banco]] In (7')-(9') the subject c-commands the controlled NP PRO, whether the subject is in Spec(I) or within the VP. Consequently, the grammaticality of (7)(9) is predicted. I have shown that under hypotheses A and B, which were independently motivated in the preceding section, we can predict the ungrammaticality of some control structures in Spanish. Thus, the phenomenon discussed in this section provides additional support for Hypothesis A, and, in turn, for Hypothesis B. To summarize, I have presented two pieces of evidence in support of Hypothesis A and Hypothesis B. I showed that under these hypotheses we can account for the distribution of readings of indefinite NPs and for the ungrammaticality of certain control structures in Spanish. Consequently, I conclude that the claims made by Hypothesis A and Hypothesis B are valid for Spanish. Now I will address the following question. Given that two structural positions are available for preverbal subjects, as has been argued, what determines what position a particular preverbal subject is going to occupy in a sentence? In the next section I give a partial answer to this question by arguing that the semantic type of the predicate, whether it is individual-level or stagelevel, to some extent determines the position of the subject at S-structure. 3. Carlson (1977, 1980) distinguishes between predicates that assign properties to individuals (individual-level predicates) and predicates that assign properties to "stages", spatiotemporal slices of individuals (stage-level predicates). Thus, vbeing intelligent' is usually a property of a particular individual, regardless of its spatiotemporal location, whereas "being sick" is a property of a stage of an individual, that is, it is a property of an individual at a particular point in space-time.

286

MEJIAS-BIKANDI

In Spanish, the distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates is grammatically manifested in the distinction between the verbs ser "be" and estar "be". Thus, individual-level adjectives appear with ser, as in (18), whereas stage-level adjectives appear with estar, as in (19): (18) Juan es alto/inteligente/fiable John be-3sg-present tall/intelligent/ trustworthy "John is tall/intelligent/trustworthy (19) Juan esta enfermolcansadolaburrido John be-3sg-present sick/tired/bored "John is sick/tired/bored" Another manifestation of this distinction is the contrast between the present habitual, as in (20), and the present continuous tense, as in (21): (20) Pedro bebe vino Peter drink-3sg-present wine "Peter drinks wine" (21) Pedro esta bebiendo vino Peter be-3sg-present drink-ger wine "Peter is drinking wine" Not surprisingly (cf. Carlson, ibid.), indefinite subjects of individual-level predicates are interpreted as generic, as in sentences (22) and (23), whereas indefinite subjects of stage-level predicates may be interpreted as existential or generic, as in sentences (24) and (25):7 (22) Un cientifico es inteligente A scientist be-3sg-present intelligent "A scientist (generic) is intelligent" (23) Un hombre bebe vino A man drink-3sg-present wine "A man (generic) drinks wine" (24) Un cientifico esta enfermo A scientist be-3sg-present sick "A scientist (existential) is sick" (25) Un hombre esta bebiendo vino 7

Sentence (23) may receive a non-habitual interpretation. Here, I am concerned only with its habitual interpretation.


287

A man be-3sg-present drink-ger wine "A man (existential) is drinking wine" I concluded in the preceding section that the interpretation of an indefinite NP is determined by its structural position at S-structure. Consequently, since the indefinite subject in (22) and (23) must be generic, it must be in Spec(I) at S-structure. On the other hand, since the indefinite subjects in (24) and (25) may be existential, they may be in Spec(V) at S-structure. A preliminary conclusion can be drawn from (22)-(25): in Spanish, subjects of individuallevel predicates must appear in Spec(I) at S-structure, whereas subjects of stage-level predicates may appear within the VP. This analysis would be similar to the analysis proposed by Diesing (1988, 1989) and Kratzer (1989) for English and German. This preliminary conclusion is corroborated by the following word order facts. The subject may generally appear postverbally in Spanish, as we saw in (2). However, the subject of individual-level predicates must appear preverbally, as (26) and (27) demonstrate: (26)??Es (Pedro) inteligente (Pedro) be-3sg-present (Peter) intelligent (Peter) "Peter is intelligent" (21)V.Bebe (Pedro) vino (Pedro) Drink-3sg-present (Peter) wine (Peter) "Peter drinks wine" On the other hand, subjects of stage-level predicates may appear postverbally, as in (28) and (29): (28)

Está (Pedro) enfermo (Pedro) be-3sg-present (Peter) sick (Peter) "Peter is sick" (29) Está (Pedro) bebiendo vino (Pedro) be-3sg-present (Peter) drink-ger wine (Peter) "Peter is drinking wine"

I pointed out above that a postverbal subject in Spanish is generally assumed to appear within the VP at S-structure. Consequently, the facts in (26)-(29) would be predicted given our preliminary conclusion above: since subjects of individual-level predicates must appear in Spec(I) at S-structure, they may not appear within the VP and, therefore, may not appear postverbally.

288

MEJIAS-BIKANDI

In this section I have claimed that the semantic class of the predicate determines to some extent the structural position of the subject at S-structure: subjects of individual-level predicates must appear outside the VP at Sstructure, whereas subjects of stage-level predicates may appear within the VP at S-structure. In the next section, I will briefly address some questions raised by the claims made in the preceding sections. 4. Let me summarize the claims I have made in the paper: i) Preverbal subjects in Spanish may appear in Spec(I) or Spec(V) at Sstructure. ii) Indefinite subjects that appear within the VP at S-structure are interpreted as existential. iii) At S-structure, subjects of individual-level predicates must appear in Spec(I), whereas subjects of stage-level predicates may appear in Spec (I) or within the VP. It was not my intention to offer a complete analysis of Spanish sentence structure, but rather, to argue that such an analysis should incorporate the claims stated above. A complete analysis of Spanish sentence structure that incorporates these claims should answer, at least, the following questions: i) Where is the subject generated? ii) What is the mechanism that causes subjects of individual-level predicates appear in Spec(I) at S-structure? iii) How does the verb in Spanish acquire tense and agreements features? iv) What other factors, besides the semantic type of the predicate, determine the position of the subject at S-structure? Although I will not address these questions in detail at this point, partial answers can be given to some of them. For instance, with respect to i) and ii), an analysis similar to that in Diesing (1989) for stage-level and individual-level predicates in English and German could be adopted for Spanish. According to this analysis, the subject is generated in different positions depending on whether the predicate is stage-level or individual-level. Mejias-Bikandi (1992) proposes a modification of Diesing's analysis and studies its application to Spanish. Mejias-Bikandi (ibid.) also provides an answer to iv), arguing that the distinction between the notions of predication and non-predicational description (Kuroda 1992) have structural consequences in Spanish. REFERENCES Bordelois, Yvonne. 1974. The grammar of Spanish Causative Complements. PhD Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusettes. Carlson, Greg N. 1977. "The English Bare Plural". L&P 1.413-457.


289

. 1980. Reference to Kinds in English. Garland: New York. Contreras, H. 1987. "Small Clauses in English and Spanish" NLLT 5:225243. Diesing, Molly. 1988. "Bare Plural Subjects and the Stage/Individual Contrast". Genericity in Natural Language, ed. by Manfred Krifka. Diesing, Molly. 1989. Bare Plural Subjects, Inflection and the Mapping to LF. Unpublished ms., University of Massachusettes, Amherst. Fukui N. and M. Speas. 1986."Specifiers and Projections", MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8,128-172. Groos, A. and Reineke Bok-Bennema. 1986. "The structure of the sentence in Spanish." InGenerative Studies in Spanish Syntax, ed by Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras and Karen Zagona. Dordrecht: Foris. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kitagawa, Y. 1986. Subject in Japanese and English. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Massachusettes, Amherst. Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. "Stage and Individual Level Predicates". Papers on Quantification, NSF Grant Report, Department of Linguistics. University of Massachusettes, Amherst. Kuroda, S-Y. 1988."Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese", Linguiticae Investigationes 12,1-47. . 1992. "Cognitive and Syntactic Bases of Topicalized and Nontopicalized Sentences in Japanese" Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge: MIT Press. Mejias-Bikandi, Errapel. 1992. "The Nature of the Stage/Individual-level Distinction and its Syntactic Reflex: Evidence from Spanish." Proceedings of WCCFL XI. Stanford: CSLI. Torrego, Esther. 1984. "On Inversion in Spanish and Some of Its Effects". Linguistic Inquiry 15:103-129. Williams, Edwin. 1980. "Predication". Linguistic Inquiry 11,203-238. Zagona, Karen. 1988. Verb Phrase Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

THE WORD ORDER OF CONSTRUCTIONS WITH A VERB, A SUBJECT, AND A DIRECT OBJECT IN SPOKEN SPANISH FRANCISCO OCAMPO University of Minnesota 0.

Introduction Spanish can be considered a flexible word order language (Givón 1984:188). In data recorded during casual conversation, the following orderings of the constituents subject, verb, and direct object have been observed: (1)

El tipo agarra el teléfono. S V O the guy takes the phone "The guy takes the phone"

(2)

Los cristales los quiere Patricia. O V S the glassware CL wants "Patricia wants the glassware"

(3)

La Casa de Tucumán Francisco no la conoce. O S V the house of no CL knows "Francisco has never visited the Casa de Tucumàn"

(4)

Lo mancha el vino al mantel. V S O CL stains the wine to the tablecloth "Wine stains the tablecloth"

(5)

No tiene ningûn incentivo la pobre René. V O S no has none incentive the poor "Poor René has no incentive"

This paper studies word order variation in constructions with three constituents: a subject, a direct object, and a verb. My hypothesis is that in these constructions word order variation is motivated by pragmatic factors: (i)

292

OCAMPO

the status new/given of the NP referent, and (ii) pragmatic functions conveyed (informational word order, contrary to expectation, focus of contrast, etc.). There is a nexus between word order, pragmatic functions, and primary stress placement. I will try to show that there is a correlation between the word order of S V DO constructions, the informational status of the NP referent, the pragmatic function conveyed by the proposition, and primary stress placement. The data for this study consist of a corpus of eighteen hours of casual conversations that include thirty middle-class speakers who are residents of La Plata, Argentina. As the number of constituents affects word order and, at present it has not been established for Spanish if main and subordinate clauses share the same word order restrictions, I take into consideration solely those constructions that are independent or main clauses and that have a verb, a subject, and a direct object, with no additional constituents. Furthermore, I only examine constructions that contain lexical NPs, i.e., I do not include personal pronouns. I consider as direct objects in Spanish those NPs that can be replaced by the clitics lo, la, los, and las. In the data, direct objects may or may not co-occur with a clitic, as in the following examples: (6)

El empleado del mostrador recibe el cheque the clerk of the counter receives the check "The clerk behind the counter receives the check"

(7)

Ernesto lo atendia a Bartola CL was caring for "Ernesto was caring for Bartola"

(8)

El tergopol nos dio Pepa the styrofoam to us gave "Pepa gave us the styrofoam"

(9)

Los cristales los quiere Patricia the glassware CL wants "Patricia wants the glassware"

In (7) the direct object a Bartola has the coreferential clitic lo, and in (9) the direct object los cristales "the glassware" has the coreferential clitic los. SilvaCorvalán (1984) regards cases like (6) to (9) as a variable phenomenon of object-verb agreement, which is in the process of diffusion. In my analysis, I consider examples like (6), (7), and (8), (9) as constructions with a postverbal

WORD ORDER IN SPOKEN SPANISH

293

and a preverbal direct object, respectively, at different stages of the spread of object-verb agreement. I adopt Prince's typology of new and given information (Prince 1981). New referents are those that are introduced into the discourse for the first time. (In Prince's typology new referents are the values 'brand-new', 'brand-new anchored', 'inferrable', and 'unused'). Given referents are those that have already been introduced (Prince's 'textually evoked'), or those that are present in an extratextual context (Prince's 'situationally evoked': any person or object within the speaker's visual field). The pragmatic functions found to motivate word order variation in the data are informational word order, focus of contrast, focal direct object, topic direct object, contrary to expectation, and comment focalization. I will now deal with these pragmatic functions. In each case I will define the notion. In the final section I will outline some generalizations. 1. Informational word order When a construction has only the pragmatic function of conveying information, I call its word order 'informational word order'. The informational word order of constructions with a verb, a subject and a direct object is S V DO, as in (10). Here the construction only conveys information. Primary stress falls on the focus: jabón "soap". Focus is the referent of that element in the sentence with which the information contained in the proposition culminates (Lambrecht 1988). It has also been defined as "the essential piece of new information that is carried by a sentence" (Comrie 1981:57). Both definitions are somewhat vague, because of the lack of precision about what exactly the terms 'culminates' and 'essential' mean. For the time being I will have to utilize these definitions for the lack of a better one. The focus does not necessarily have to be new information in Prince's sense—i.e., introduced into the discourse for the first time. It is the relation between the focus and the rest of the proposition that is considered by the speaker as new to the hearer. (10)

El tipo se pone jabón1 the guy himself puts soap "The guy lathers his face"

The context is:

The symbol (') indicates primary stress, (") secondary stress, and (A) tertiary stress.

294

OCAMPO (11)2

C: acâ las pavadas, yo le digo, (...), es horrible [ F: ah bueno, pero alla también, es lo mismo. [ C: no, pero acá es inconcebible. El otro dia estaba viendo por television un avi:so (0.2) de: un juguete, para un chico, afeitarse como papa. El tipo se porte jabón y se pasa una cosa que no corta - se afeita. Juguete, (0.8) eh? C: here, silliness, I tell you (...), is terrible [ F: well, but there you see the same thing too [ C: yeah, but here it is unbelievable. The other day I was watching a commercial on tv (0.2) it was about a toy, for boys, shave yourself like dad. The guy lathers his face and shaves himself with something that can't cut the skin - he shaves himself. A toy, (0.8) huh? A valid issue is why the informational word order of constructions with a verb, a subject and a direct object is S V DO. The motivation for this ordering is the new/given status of the NP referents. Table 1 displays the frequency with which the parameters new and given referent on the one hand and subject and direct object on the other hand co-occur: If we take into consideration only the informational status of the subject referent, we see that constructions with new NP subject referents constitute 35.78% of the data (Table 1, (a) and (b)). On the other hand, the majority of the constructions (64.22%) exhibit given subject referents (Table 1, (c) and (d)). 2

The conventions used in the transcription are as follows. A single bracket '[' between two utterances indicates that they overlap. The sign *=' marks partial overlapping between the end of a turn and the beginning of another. Utterances appear between parentheses when I am not sure of the accuracy of the transcription. Three periods between parentheses '(•••)' mean that it was impossible to ascertain what the speaker said. Three periods between square brackets '[...]' indicate that data is omitted. A hiatus of any kind in the speech flow is marked by '-'. A pause is indicated by parentheses: '()'• A number between parentheses '(1.4)' shows the length of the pause (in seconds and tenths of seconds). Underlined words or utterances mark that this portion is perceived as salient (strong primary stress, high pitch, or uttered with louder voice, etc.). Lengthening is indicated by V after a vowel or a consonant. Any additional information appears between square brackets: '[risas]'.

295


The motivation for this difference is cognitive. Lambrecht (1988:146) states that human language is subject to a general cognitive constraint imposed on the simultaneous performance of two independent tasks: a) to determine the intended referent, and b) to process propositional information about this referent. The newer the referent, the heavier the cognitive effort in the first task. Lambrecht calls this relation between a referent and a proposition a "relation of aboutness" and states that "this constraint can be expressed in the form of a simple discourse-maxim: do not introduce a referent and talk about it in the same clause." Combination

Tokens

Percentage

19

17.43

b. Sn DOg

20

18.35

c. Sg DOn

36

33.03

d. Sg DOg

34

31.19

Total

109

100.00

a. Sn DOn

3

35.78% 64.22%

Table 1 New/given, Subject/direct object Combinations in informational word order constructions Spanish follows Lambrecht's constraint but only for the newest kind of referents: brand-new and brand-new anchored—those that have no connection with the preceding discourse. Evidence of this is that in the data there are no examples of S V DO constructions with brand-new or brand-new anchored subject referents. The only new subject referents present are those somewhat connected with the previous discourse—inferrables—or that are present in the long term memory of the hearer—unused. Notice that in terms of Prince's Scale of Familiarity (Prince 1981:245), these types are less new than the brand-new ones. As a consequence, the task of determining the intended referent is less heavy and it is possible to undertake the second task of processing propositional information about this referent. Nevertheless, the first task is heavier with new (inferrable or unused) subject referents than with given ones. This is why the majority of the NP subjects has given referents. Cognitively, communication proceeds from known to unknown—Firbas' principle of communicative dynamism (Firbas 1964). Therefore, the motivation for the preverbal position of the subject in informational word order The notation 'n' stands for new; 'g' stands for given.

296

OCAMPO

constructions is that this majority of given NP subject referents provides a link with the preceding discourse. An additional argument in favor of this hypothesis is that Table 1 shows two sorts of combinations. The first type involves constructions whose S/DO referents have the same informational level (both new or both given). These constructions can be considered 'balanced'. This is the case of Table 1 (a) and (d). The second type involves constructions in which the subject and the direct object have a different informational level. If we compare (b) and (c), we see that 18.35% of the constructions have a new4 subject and a given direct object (b). On the other hand, 33.03% of the constructions have a given subject referent and a new direct object referent (c). Table 2 takes in consideration only these two types. According to Table 2, the majority of constructions with a different informational level have given subject referents and new direct object referents. It is reasonable then to hypothesize that this higher occurrence of given NP subject referents in combination with new NP object referents is an additional motivation for the generalized S V DO informational word order. Combination

Tokens

Percentage

Sn DOg

20

36

Sg DOn

36

64

56

100

Total

Table 2 'Constructions with different informational level 1. Focus of contrast 'Focus of contrast' is the constituent that stands in opposition to a closed number of alternatives, members of the same semantic set. What is asserted is which candidate is the correct one (Chafe 1976, Silva-Corvalân 1983). The other alternatives, members of the set, must be identifiable. In spoken Spanish, the constituent whose referent is focus of contrast appears first and receives primary stress. When the subject is focus of contrast the order is S V DO. Primary stress falls on the subject, as in (12):

4

Inferrable or Unused.


(12)

297

Tu padre dice esto tu madre dice esto your father says this your mother says this "Your father says this, your mother says that"

The context is (13): (13) (Speaker V talks about how she and her husband are going to raise the child she is expecting) V: ahora, de cualquier manera, lo que yo tengo bien claro, es que: (0.8) nos vamos a poner de acuerdo. Es decir, no va a ser ah, tu padre dice esto, tu madre dice esto, viste. V: now, in any case, what is crystal clear to me is tha:t (0.8) we will always agree with each other [in the presence of the child]. That is, what will not happen is ah, your father says this, your mother says that, you see. Speaker V contrasts the referent of padre "father" with the referent of madre "mother". When the direct object is focus of contrast, the word order is DO V S. Primary stress falls on the constituent whose referent is focus of contrast, in this case the direct object, as in (14). (14)

No : Francisco dic(e) el tipo no says the guy "No, Francisco, says the guy"

The context of (14) is a short narrative: (15) 2b26 (Speaker P is describing a television commercial in which a female flight attendant takes a man for a woman because of his long hair .) P: claro, parece una mujer, el tipo. De espaldas, tá asi en un avión, no? con el pelo largo, rubio, asi. [la azafata] Dice ¿Leticia? No:, Francisco dice el tipo. [risas] P: well, the guy looks like a woman. He is shown from behind. He is in a plane, you see, he has long blond hair. [the flight attendant] says Leticia? No, Francisco, says the guy. [laughter]

298

OCAMPO

Speaker P contrasts the referent of the direct object Francisco with the referent of Leticia. 3. Focal direct object In a question-answer exchange, the referent of the constituent that provides the information requested—the focus of the answer—is the 'focal referent' (Silva-Corvalân 1983:35). It occupies the first position and receives primary stress. Constructions with a focal direct object have a DO V S word order. There is only one example in the data. The direct object receives primary stress: »

(16)

A

"

Caracalla se llama el pueblo is called the village "Caracalla is the name of the village"

The context of (16) is: (17) 4a3 L: pero nu:nca pude acorda:rme en que localidad era, (de) estaban las Termas de Caracalla= F: =cerca de Roma (0.4) L: y cerca de Roma pero ¿cómo cómo se llama? Bueno, ellas lo nombraban tanto porque [ F: Caracalla se llama el pueblo L: but I was never able to remember in which village were located Caracalla Hot Springs= F: =near Rome (0.4) L: near Rome yes but, what is the name? Well, they used to mention it a lot because [ F: Caracalla is the name of the village Here Speaker F answers L's question. The direct object Caracalla provides the information requested. 4. Sentence topic direct object According to Lambrecht (1988), "the topic of a sentence is what the sentence is about." The constituent whose referent is topic appears in preverbal position; in constructions with a subject and a direct object, the word order is


299

DO V S. Primary stress falls on the direct object. Also, in most of the cases there is also a primary stress on the subject. In (18) the DO is the topic of the sentence: I

(18)

!t

M

I

Y ese: cartelito lo tienen los autos estos and this bumper sticker CL have the cars these "And this bumper sticker these cars have it"

The context of (18) is the following: (19)llal6 À: y nosotros tenemos un Oldsmobile. Es un: auto grandote, no sé si te conto. Grando:te, pero del ano [ F: si:, si:, si: A: sesenta y siete, tiene como veinte a:nos, ¿no? Old Sam, se llama [risas] el auto [risas] A: y le pusimos el cartelito: - iu es ci [USC] que s el de la universidad nuestra= S: =ahá= A: =University of Southern - California () y ese: cartelito lo tienen los autos estos, los Po:rsches, los - Rolls Ro:yce, e todos estos autos. Y en nuestro auto es un - chiste A: a:nd we have an Oldsmobile. It's a big car, I don't know if he told you. It's bi:g and it's a [ S: ye:s, ye:s, ye:s A: sixty seven model, it's almost twenty years old. We call it Old Sam [laughs] A: and we stuck on it a bumper sticker - USC that is our University= S: =aha= A: =University of Southern - California () and this bumper sticker these cars have it, you know, Porsches, Rolls Royces, um all these cars. And on our car it's a - joke Speaker A is talking about a bumper sticker, then she briefly inserts an explanation, and she returns to the previous topic: the bumper sticker. This is a typical mechanism for returning to a previous topic in spoken Spanish. There is one case in the data where a construction with a topic direct object has a subject focus of contrast at the same time. This is possible because the combinatory possibilities of constructions with three constituents allow them to convey more than one pragmatic function at the same time. The construction whose direct object referent is topic and in which the referent of the subject is

300

OCAMPO

focus of contrast has a O S V word order. Both the topic and the focus of contrast receive primary stress: (20)

La Casa de Tucumân Francisco no la conoce the House of no CL knows "Francisco has never visited the Casa de Tucumân"

The context is (21): (21) 16al4 E: ¿cuándo es que parten para Tucumán? A: e:l: seis () el seis, el domingo seis [...] E: y este al: sobrino, el sobrino también tuvo que ir a Estados Uni:dos, que es mé:dico: () ahora estân en el Sur ahora A: m: E: uno esta en: - Trelew [ M: y todos estân desparramados ellos también, porque acâ ¿qué van a hacer?= L: =si, no hacen nada (...) [ A: y si () no hay mucho porvenir, no hay mucho porvenir [ [ [ E: no: na:da nada A: e: (0.3) el - la casa de Tucumân Francisco no la conoce. Yo la conozco (...) pero Francisco no: E: when do you leave for Tucumân? A: on: the: sixth () the sixth, Sunday sixth [...] E: and the nephew, also the nephew had to go to the United States. He is a doctor () now they are in the south A: I see E: one of them is at - Trelew [ M: and also all of them are scattered, because here, what can they do?= L: =yes, there is nothing for them here (...) [ A: yes () there is no future here, there is no future [ [ [


301

E: no: nothing nothing A: urn: (0.3) the - Francisco has never visited the Casa de Tucumdn. I have been there (...) but Francisco hasn't The previous discourse topic has been A's future trip to the city of Tucumán. Some minutes later in the conversation A returns to a related topic: the Casa de T u c u á n , the building in which the proclamation of Argentina's independence took place. At the same time, she contrasts her husband, who has not yet been there, with herself, who has. 5. Contrary to expectation An utterance expresses 'contrary to expectation' when it conveys a message not expected given the previous discourse, the knowledge of the world or the culture, the knowledge of the other discourse participants, etc. This pragmatic function includes two related notions: (i) unexpected or surprising news and (ii) denial of a previous assumption. In the first case, what the utterance communicates is not expected given the previous discourse situation, the knowledge of the world, etc. In the second case, something in the previous discourse has led the speaker to believe that the hearer has a false assumption. Therefore, the speaker tries to clarify the situation. Primary stress falls on the focus. Constructions that convey contrary to expectation have a V S O word order, as seen in (22): (22)

No pero lo ma:ncha el vino al mantel no but CL stains the wine to the tablecloth "No, but wine stains the tablecloth"

The context is the following: (23) 2b23 (A has spilled wine over the tablecloth) F: el vino, peca:do !que hiciste! A: pe:ro. Perdo:n, Susana. [ S: jsuerte, suerte! No, si ya estaba manchado (de ...) [ P: la herejia es el haber tirado el vino, nada mas. Eso si.= A: =si:, to:do. Todo. El mantel, el vino en el pantalon,todo [ S: no, pero lo mancha el vino al mantel, ^no?

302

OCAMPO

F: the wine, what a si:n, what have you done! A: oh: I am sorry, Susana [ S: good luck good luck! No problem, it was already stained (with ...) [ P: the heresy is to have spilled the wine, this is the only thing that matters= A: =yes, everything. Everything. The tablecloth, the wine on the trousers, [ S: no, but wine A: everything S: [ stains the tablecloth, doesn't it? In this context, speaker S denies the previous assumption contained in the utterance of P: la herejia es el haber tirado el vino, nada más, namely that the wine spill will do no harm. The focus of the denial is the verb and it receives primary stress. 6. Comment focalization There are cases in the data in which the crucial information is conveyed not by a single constituent but by the cluster formed by the verb and the direct object (the comment). I call these cases comment focalization. The word order is V O S . ti

(24)

i

H

i

No tiene ningún incentivo la pobre René no has any incentive the poor "Poor René has no incentive"

The context is (25): (25) lla9 (F and A are talking with S about former colleages) A: ¿y René esta también ahora?= [en la biblioteca] S : =René esta a la mahana= A: =ah S: esta a la manana, si= F: =yo estuve un rato con ella p claro, habia tenido un surmena:ge, una cosa asi, m estaba medio apaga:da y esas (cosas) [ S: cuan - y sigue, pobre, mal F: mh?


303

S: si, sigue mal () René sigue mal (0.8) porque: () ta muy deprimi:da, qué sé yo, este: F: mhm S: si estará con un terapeuta como la gente o no pero: () pasa de médico en médico, () o sea, va por los o este: - porque le duele la cintura, a uno, después tiene turno con este:, qué sé yo, con otro, () y después va al al siquiarra y esta () llena de pastillas y no - y no tiene ningûn incenîivo la pobre René. No tiene ganas de vivir. A: S: A: S: F: S: F: S: F: S:

and also René works now= [in the library]? =René is there the mornings= =ah she is there the mornings, yes= =I have been talking with her and she had had a nervous breakdown, something like this, she looked gloomy and this (sort of thing) [ she - she has not improved, poor thing is that so? yes, she has not improved () René has not improved (0.8) because () she is very depressed, I don't know uhm mhm if she is with a good doctor or not but () she goes from doctor to doctor () that is, she goes to er - because she has a backache, she goes to a doctor, then she has an appointment with, I don't know, with another one () and then she goes to the psychiatrist and she is () she is taking a lot of medication and no - poor René has no incentive. She doesn't want to live.

In this construction, it is the whole comment that is focus. Notice that in (24), word order and primary stress separate the cluster verb-direct object from the subject. In the case of informational word order (S V O), the object with primary stress conveys the notion of focus but it is only the object that carries this pragmatic function. In the case of V O S word order, it is the whole comment that is important because it communicates the crucial information. This construction is typically utilized to comment on a previous situation, as can be observed in (25).

7.

Generalizations

Table 3 shows the relationship between pragmatic function, word order, and primary stress placement previously discussed. From Table 3 we can see that the pragmatic functions of focus of contrast, focal direct object, and topic direct object motivate a preverbal position of the constituent whose referent conveys these notions. We also see that it is possible

304

OCAMPO

for three constituent constructions to communicate more that one pragmatic function at the same time. Pragmatic

Word

Tokens

%

order

function

S V DO

109

76.22

S V DO

9

6.3

DO VS

5

3.5

Focal direct object

DO V S

1

0.7

Topic direct object

DO V S

8

5.59

Topic DO and S

DO S V

1

0.7

to

V S DO

2

1.4

Focalized comment

V DO S

8

5.59

143

100.00

Conveying information Subject focus of contrast Direct object focus of contrast

focus of contrast Contrary expectation

Total

Table 3 Pragmatic function, stress placement and word order of constructions with a verb, a subject, and a direct object 5 In Table 3, informational word order comprises the majority of the constructions (76.22%). S V D O word order in spoken Spanish can be considered 'basic' or 'unmarked' in the sense that it solely conveys information and constitutes the majority of the constructions in the data. Any departure from this order is marked in the sense that it conveys a pragmatic function (besides that of communicating information.) 5

Primary stress falls on the focus in constructions with informational word order and contrary to expectation. In the case of informational word order, additional discourse considerations not relevant for word order may motivate a primary stress on either of the other two constituents. The last observation also applies for constructions whose subject is focus of contrast but in such cases the subject always receives primary stress.


305

REFERENCES Brody, Jill. 1984. "Some Problems with the Concept of Basic Word Order". Linguistics 22.711-36. Chafe, Wallace. 1976. "Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Topics, and Points of View". Subjects and Topics, ed. by Charles Li. 25-55. New York: Academic Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cruttenden, Alan. 1986. Intonation. Cambridge: CUP. Firbas, Jan. 1964. "On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis". Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1.267-80. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. . 1988. "The Pragmatics of Word Order: Predictability, Importance and Attention". InStudies in Syntactic Typology, ed. by Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik, & Jessica Wirth. 243-84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. "Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French". InClause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John H aiman & Sandra Thompson. 135-79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Prince, Ellen. 1981. "Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information". In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole. 223-55. New York: Academic Press. Silva-Corvalân, Carmen. 1983. "On the Interaction of Word Order and Intonation: Some OV Constructions in Spanish". In Discourse Perspectives on Syntax, ed. by Flora Klein-Andreu. 117-40. New York: Academic Press. . 1984. "Semantic and pragmatic factors in syntactic change". In Historical Syntax, ed. by Jacek Fisiak. 555-73. Berlin: Mouton.

VERB INCORPORATION AND THE HMC IN XVIth CENTURY SPANISH* CLAUDIA PARODI University of California, Los Angeles 0.

Introduction Some syntactic constructions brought by the Spaniards to the New World can be considered remnants of Medieval Spanish. Constructions in which the participle raises in front of the auxiliary, such as the examples in (1), are still found in texts written in Spanish America and Spain during the XVI Century. (1) a..Perdidoha el mantenedor su gloria Lost has the keeper his glory 'The keeper has lost his glory" (Keniston 1937: 453) b. Vengado me habia Ysmenia Revenged me had Ysmenia "Ysemnia had taken revenge on me" (Keniston 1937: 453) c. Como dicho ha, vido la tierra pacifica As said has (he), (he) saw the land in peace "As he has said, he saw the land in peace" (Juicio de Garay 1523) These constructions have been considered counter-examples of the HMC (Head Movement Constraint), and they have been analyzed as cases of Long Head Movement (Rivero 1988, 1991, Lema and Rivero 1990, Roberts 1991). Briefly, according to the Long Head Movement proposal, the participle moves to Co skipping the IP node, as is shown in the abbreviated tree in (2). The Long Head Movement proposal, however, raises some questions. On one hand, it predicts the possibility of having the subject between the moved participle and the auxiliary verb, generating ungrammatical or unattested sentences in the languages that prepose the participle, such as (3). On the other hand, long head movement violates the Head Movement Constraint (HMC) and

* I am grateful to Tim Stowell for his bibliographic help and for listening to the initial ideas that I have afterward developed here. The usual disclaimer applies. Thank you to José Lema for giving me his latest papers on verb movement at the conference.

308

PARODI

with it the version of the ECP that subsumes this constraint (Chomsky 1986: 68-71, Baker 1988:53)1.

(3) *[[Vengadoi [Ysmenia [me habia...t[...]]] Revenged Ysmenia me had In this paper I would like to present an alternative approach, the Short Head Movement proposal which, by maintaining the HMC, excludes the issues mentioned above. Within this approach the participle, head of the lower VP, incorporates to the left of the auxiliary by adjunction like in (4): (4) CP [AgrP Ysmenia [Agrvengadoi-me-habia...ti...]] Ysmenia revenged me had "Ysmenia had taken revenge on me" Then the whole verbal complex moves to Co, as in (5): (5) CP [C Vengado-mei-habiaj [AgrP Ysmenia tij...ti...]] Revenged me had Ysmenia

1 The HMC (Travis 1984: 131) requires that an X 0 element moves to the position of the head Y 0 directly above it. The Long Head Movement proposal is problematic since it is debatible whether the verbal head may be properly governed, even if auxiliary tense marks the VP (see Baker 1988: 53-54 and note 5). However I will not argue on these lines, since I will present data that supports the Short Head Movement.

VERB INCORPORATION AND THE HMC

309

1. The Short Head Movement Proposal2 From a wider perspective, if the HMC is maintained as in the Short Head Movement proposal, the fronting of the participle pa tterns with auxiliary fronting in V2 Germanic languages and with participle fronting in other langugaes. Besides, the Short Head Movement proposal seems to be descriptively adequate, since it generates grammatical sentences and excludes deviant sentences such as ( 3) above. 1.1 The Constituent Participle + Auxiliary. The Short Head Movement approach accounts for the fact that the fronted participle and the auxiliary form a constituent. In the languages that raise the participle, there are no sentential elements interposed between the fronted participle and the auxiliar y, other than the clitics and sometimes negation. Besides Old Spanish and European Portuguese, Modern Rumanian, and Southern and We stern Slavic langugaes and Icelandic front the participle, as Lema, Rivero and Roberts have shown. Thus, in these languages the subj ect either follows the verbal complex or it is dropped. Other than the Spanish examples mentioned above in (1), the following examples from Bulgarian in (6) and Rumanian in (7) illustrate this fact (the emphasis is mine): (6)

a. Az sum procel knigata I have+1s read book+the "I have read the book" b. Procel sum knigata Read have+1s book+the (Rivero 1991: 44)

(7)

a. Dumnezu l-ar bate God him-would 3 s punish "God would punish him" b. Bate-l-ar Dumnezu (Rivero 1988: 16) Furthermore, the position of the subject and the object at S-structure in examples as (la), shows that the moved element is the verb al head only and not 2

Lema and Rivero (1990: 339) suggest that there is short verb movement from VP to aux in examples equivalent to the modern Spanish future such as: (i) E nos vos aiudaremos, And we you help(inf) have, "And we will help you" (Cid 1140 v 44). However, I would like to propose that the auxiliary in these constructions has been already reanalyzed—since vulgar Latin (Bassols 1973: 306)—and it is equivalent to the inflectional suffixes of simple tenses. The presence of the subject pronoun nos "we" preposed to the ve rb shows that there is no V to C. Another strategy to generate futures is the split future as in Despacharsela has, Despach it her has, "He has despatch it to her" (Keniston 1937: 438). Examples like this seem to be like focalized participle constructions, in whi ch the non-finite verb raises to C 0 by steps.

310

PARODI

the whole VP. Additional evidence supporting this interpretation is the absence of written examples of VP raisi ng above the auxiliary, as in (8): (8) *Perdido su gloria ha el mantenedor Lost his glory has the keeper 1.2 The Trigger of Participle Raising. The triggering mechanism for fronting the verb varies across languages. In Old Spanish there were two triggers. One is a wel 1 known prosodic constraint. The other is a focusing strategy. With regards to the first trigger, there was a ban against the clitics or the auxiliary at the beginning of the sentence or after a long pause. However, the prohibition of the clitic in first position lasted longer than the ban of the auxiliary at the beginning of the sentence (see below 1.3). The second trigger that I would like to propose derives from a universal tendency proposed by Adams (1989: 9), "Verbs do not take heavy stress, unless they are focused". Thus, when Old Spanish speakers fronted a verb in declarative sentences, they exploited this focusing strategy. These two strategies were not mutually exclusive, since both could interact simultaneously. If only the prosodic constraint is considered in examples such as (la-c), there is no need for the participle to raise from its based generated position whatsoever. Neither the clitic nor the auxiliary are in first position in these examples. In (la) and ( l b ) the subject is overt, thus in first position, and in (lc) como precedes the verb. Hence, only the focusing strategy triggers for participles to raise in these constructions3. 1.3 The Mechanics of the Short Verb Movement .In my proposal the participle raises to C 0 by steps. Thus, first it left adjoins to the auxiliary which may be preceded by the clitic. The clitic may have been generated or moved to Agr 0 . The movement of the participle to Agr 0 is shown in the example in (4 ). In (4) the traces are properly governed according to any version of the ECP (Chomsky 1986, Baker 1988, Rizzi 1990). If it is assumed an extended sentential structure such as in Chomsky (1991), Pollock (1989), or Belletti (1990), in (4) there are three X 0 chains. Two chains are triggered by the morphological condition that precludes stranded affixes at S-structure, as in Lasnik (1981). A third chain is created by the raised participle. This is shown in (9) (irrelevant parts excluded):

3

In addition, in XVIth century texts there are examples in which the auxiliary or the clitic may be in first position (see examples in Keniston 1937: 455).


311

(9) [CP [AgrPYsmenia[Agr*vengadojk[Agrme-habiai[TPti[VPti[Agr-Otk [AspPtj[VPtj]]]]]]]]] In (9) the participle raises over the morphological chain with subindex i and left adjoins to the auxiliary. The morphological chain with subindex i is a functional projection, which is part of the extended projection of the auxiliary. Thus, it does not interfere with the locality requirement of head movement (see Grimshaw 1991). Since the participle is incorporated to the auxiliary, all the traces left by the three movements mentioned above are properly (antecedent) governed by the head Agr*4. This fact is captured by Baker's Government Transparency Corolary.As I pointed out above, the subject in (9) precludes the participle in Agr to be focused, sin ce it is in first position. Thus, the whole verbal complex moves to C 0 . This is shown in (5) above. In (5) the movement of the compl ex verb to C 0 satisfies the ECP. In C 0 the complex verb is coindexed with all the traces left behind. Hence they continue to be pro perly governed after this movement. In the Barriers framework, the complex verb in C 0 crosses no barriers since IP (here AgrP) can be a barrier only by inheritance. Furthermore, Relativized Minimality is respected. After the XIIIth Century, the participle was not the only focused verbal element in declarative root sentences. The auxiliary or a simple tense could to be focalized as in (10): (10) a. Haviaj D. Juan ya tj proveido que D.Luis recogiese a Granada Had D.Juan already provided that D. Luis retake to Granada (Keniston 1937: 453) "D. Juan had already provided that D. Luis retake G." b. Començome su Magestad a açer tantas merçedes Began-to-me his Majesty to do many favors "His Majesty began to do many favors to me" (Keniston 1937: 453) 1.4.1 Adjacency . Up to now I have not addressed the question whether Nominative Case marking via Spec/head agreement is possible in examples with preposed participle such as (4), since the raised participle is a lexical head that may break adjacency. If adjacency is interrupted, the verbal complex will have 4

Chomsky (1986: 69) and Baker (1988: 54, 61) claim that X 0 categories cannot be lexically governed since X 0 categories never bear theta indeces. Theta indeces are assigned to an XP under sisterhood but, unlike other features, they do not percolate to the X 0 head. Thus, if V 0 were theta marked by I 0 (TNS0), V 0 would be properly governed and long head movement would be permitted. Thus, examples such as *how tall bei John will ti would not be barred.

312

PARODI

to raise to Co in order to Case mark the subject via government. If adjacency is not interrupt ed, Case will be assigned by Spec/head agreement before the participle raises to Co. There are few documented examples such as (11), which may be interpreted as evidence of nominative Case assignment via Spec/head agreement before raising: (11) Yo cumplidoi-he ti con lo que debo I performed-have with that what (I) have to "I have done what I have to do" (Keniston 1937: 453) However, the subject in examples such as this may be Topicalized and the verbal complex may be in Co- But according to IncorporationTheory, incorporated elements are not distinct from the head they adjoin to. Thus, the adjoined participle in Agr 0 . would not break adjacency anyway. 1.4.2 Nominative Case Assignment. Since I have assumed that adjacency is not interrupted by participle raising, I will also assume that Nominative Case is assigned by Spec/head agreement before the verbal complex raises to C 0 . Hence, the movement of the complex verb to Co, as in examples (1) and (10), is an outcome of a focusing strategy only and it is not triggered by Case theoretic reasons. Old Spanish is not the only language that Case marks its subject in this fashion. Other languages that prépose the participle Case-mark their subjects likewise. See for example Modern Rumanian above in (7). When the subject is not overt, I will propose that small pro is in the spec of AgrP and that the whole verbal complex moves to C 0 when it is required, as in (12): (12)[CMandado-me-hai [AgrPPro ti que detenga la oscuridad]] Ordered me has (he) that (I) keep the darkness "He has ordered me that I keep it dark" (Keniston 1937: 453) In (12) the verbal complex moves to Co in order to be focused or to avoid the clitic first word order, after small pro has been lice need and has received Nominative Case in the spec of AgrP in the same fashion as (1) and (11). The licencing of small pro in subject position is coextensive with the domain of nominative Case assignment (Rizzi 1986: 524). Thus, as expected, Nominative Case assignment to pro via Spec/head agreement is not blocked by participle fronting. 2. Participle Raising in Main and Subordinate Sentences


313

Participle raising is not restricted to main clauses in Old Spanish, since there are examples such as (lc), repeated as (13) : (13) Como dicho ha, vido la tierra pacifica As said has (he), (he) saw the land peaceful "As he has said, he saw the land peaceful" (Juicio de Garay, 1523) Examples as (13) are not counter-examples to the proposal that the verbal complex raises to Co. We may assume that como in (13) is a wh-word in the spec of CP, and that the verbal complex is in Co The structure of this sentence would be as (14): (14) [CP como [c dichoi haj [AgrP pro tij...ti...vido...]]] Thus, we may conclude that the verbal complex participle + auxiliary may be focalized in subordinate sentences, provided that the position Co is empty. Sporadically, a participle or an inflected verb may be focalized in a layered CP5 as in (15): (15) a. Yo, segura [cque [candaj [AgrPmi tio tj bebiendo los vientos por I, sure that goes my uncle swallowing the winds for to saber donde estoy]]] know where (I) am "I (am) sure that my uncle goes swallowing the winds to know where I am" (Keniston 1937: 453) b. Pues el confesso[Cque [cpagado lo avia]] Thus he confessed that payed it (he) had "Thus he confessed that he had payed" (Lema & Rivero 1992: 26) 3. Negation and Participle Raising It has been assumed that the negative marker no is a barrier that prevents participle raising (Rivero 1988, 1991, Lema and Rivero 1990). Thus, the presence of no would rule out constructions as (16a). Furthermore, placement of the verb between the auxiliary and negation is also barred as in (16b):

Independent evidence for layered CPs in Spanish are examples such as Juan preguntó[cque [cpa quién[cvio Ana ayer]]] John asked that whom saw Ana yesterday ("John asked who did Ann saw yest.")

314

PARODI

(16) a. * Perdido no ha el mantenedor su gloria Lost not has the keeper its glory b. *No perdido ha el mantenedor su gloria Not lost has the keeper its glory However, examples like (16 b) are acceptable in languages such as Czeck and Slovak (Rivero 1991). Moreover, examples parallel to (16a) are found in Spanish during the Middle Ages, even if they are not very frequent: (17) Lo que, en muchos anos, recabado non has That what, in many years, obtained not have (you) "What you have not obtained in many years" (Libro de Buen Amor in Company 1980: 62) On one hand, examples like these justify parametrizing NegP in different positions in the tree, as it has been proposed lately (Zanuttini 1990, Laka 1990, and Rivero 1991 among others). On the other hand, they show that the restriction on preposing simultaneously the participle and negation to the auxiliary verb may be interpreted as a constraint but not as a severe violation of a principle like the ECP in Old Spanish. I would like to propose that this restriction is originated by the fact that participle and negation compete for the same position, since both may be focalized elements. Following Belletti (1990) and Chomsky (1991) I will assume that negation is a maximal projection generated between AgrP-S and TP (see also Rizzi 1991 and Hegeman 1991). Moreover, I will also assume that negation must left adjoin to Agro. However, in Old Spanish—but not in Modern Spanish—the participle could optionally left adjoin to the negative marker as in (18): (18) [CPAgrP pro[Agr*recabadok[Agrnoni[Agrhasj]]] ti tj tk]] Since these movements are adjunctions, they do not violate the ECP due to Baker's Government Transparency Corollary. As I have propo sed above, I assume that the whole verbal complex finally will move to Co, since the preposed participle is focused. I do not assume that negation is generated higher than AgrP, as it has been recently proposed for Romance (Laka 1990, Zanuttini 1990). If NegP were generated above AgrP, there would be a need to move the subject to the spec of NegP or to a higher projection to avoid ungrammatical examples such as (19):


315

(19) *No Pedro ha visto a Maria Not Peter has seen Mary However, there does not seem to exist independent motivation for this movement (Haegeman 1991 has arrived to the same conclusion for French). Furthermore, structures such as (17) would have to be constructed by raising the participle directly into Co by long head movement in order to generate the expected word order. I have shown that this movement is not allowed since the participle would cross two heads—auxiliary and negation—and its trace would be not properly (antecedent) governed violating the ECP. Thus, NegP seems to be base generated between AgrP and TP6 . Further support for assuming that no adjoins to AgrP is the fact that the adjoined negation moves with the verb to Co in questions and Aux-to-Comp constructions as in (20) (see also Zagona 1988). 4.

Conclusions The Short Head Movement proposal presented here seems to be empirically correct, for that it does not generate deviant sente nces. Since it maintains the HMC, it predicts that the child would have to learn only whether there is V to C in the language that h e or she is exposed to, what is the trigger, and whether the fronted verb is an auxiliary, a lexical verb or both. The rest would be automatic. REFERENCES Adams, Marianne. 1987. "Verb Second Effects in Medieval French". In Studies in Romance Linguistics ed. by Carl Kirshner and Janet de Cesaris, 1-31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press. 6

There is good evidence brought up by Zanuttini (1990) and Belletti (1990) which shows that negation in Italian—and Spanish as well—is a functional head which must take a TP complement. Thus when TP is missing, Negation cannot be selected as the sentential negative marker. This prediction is confirmed in the case of participial small clauses, which may be viewed as AgrP's with no TP. Since they lack TP, negation is not possible to occur within these structures (see examples in Belletti 1990). A similar argument has been used for imperatives by Zanuttini. However it does not hold completely for Old Spanish, since there are some examples of neg ated true imperatives as: Esforzad e non temed, Strengthen and not fear, "Strengthen and don't fear" (Copia 1529 in Cuervo 1977: 94 ); No mirad a vuestra gana, Not look to your desire, "Don't look to your desire" (Durân 1832 in Cuervo 1977: 94).

316

PARODI

Bassols de Climent, Mariano. 1973. S intaxis Latina. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientfficas. Belletti, Adiana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Aspects of VerbSyntax. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. Cantar de Mio Cid. 1964 ed. by Ramon Menendez Pidal. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. . 1991. "Some notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation". In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar ed. by Robert Freidin, 415-454. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. Company, Inmaculada. 1980. Formalización del paradigma verbal compuesto en siete textos de la Edad Media. Unpublished Thesis. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Diario de Colón. 1962 ed. by Carlos Sanz. Madrid: Bibliotheca America Vetustissima. Grimshaw, Jean. 1991. "Extended Projection". Glow Newsletter. Tilburg: Foris. Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. "Negative concord, Negative heads". Ms. University of Geneva. Juicio de Garay. 1523 ed. by Claudia Parodi. Ms. UNAM & UCLA Cuervo, Rufino Jose. 1977. "Notas". In Gramática de la lengua Castellana by Andrés Bello. Mexico: Editora Nacional. Keniston, Hayward. 1937. The Syntax of XVIth Century Castillan Prose. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in Syntax. On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Unpublished Ph D. dissertation.MIT. Lapesa, Rafael. 1980. Historia de la Lengua Espanola. Madrid:Gredos. Lasnik, Howard. 1981. "Restricting the Theory of Transformations:a. Case Study". In Explanation in Linguistics, 152-173 ed by Norbert Hornstein and David Lighfoot. London: Longman. Lema, José and Maria Luisa Rivero. 1990."Long Head Movement: ECP vs. HMC". In Proceedings of Nels 20, 333-347 ed by Julie Carter, Rose-Marie Dechaine, Bill Philip and Tim Sherer. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. . 1992. "Types of verbal movement in Old Spanish: Modals, Futures, and Perfects". To appear in Probus. Pollock, Jean Yves. 1989. "Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP". Linguistic Inquiry 20, 3 6 5 - 2 4 .


317

Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1988. "The Structure of IP and V-movement in the Languages of the Balkans". Ms. University of Ottawa. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. "Null objects in Italian and the Theory of pro". Linguistic Inquiry 17,501-557. . 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. . 1991. "Residual Verb Second and Wh-Criterion". Ms. Universite de Geneve. Roberts, Ian. 1991. "Head-Government and the Local Nature of Headmovement". Glow Newsletter. Tilburg: Foris. Suner, Margarita. 1987. "Haber + Past Participle". Linguistic Inquiry 18, 683690. Torrego Esther. 1984. "On inversion in Spanish and Some of its Effects". Linguistic Inquiry 15, 103-129. Travis Lisa. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation.Ph D. Dissertation, MIT. Zagona, Karen. 1988. Verb Phrase Syntax: A Parametric Study ofEnglish and Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Zanuttini, Rafaella. 1990. "Two Types of Negative Markers". In Proceedings of NELS 20, 517-529 ed by Julie Carter, Rose- Marie Duchaine, Bill Philip and Tim Sherer. Amherst:University of Massachusetts.

NON-THEMATIC DATIVES IN SPANISH MARIANNA POOL El Colegio de México 0.

Introduction I wish to consider the possibility of analyzing the cases of benefactive datives and possessor raising (PR) in Spanish as cases of preposition incorporation (PI) from non-argument positions. While Baker (1988) would rightly insist that such a process violates the ECP by leaving a trace of P which is not properly governed, the Spanish data suggest that such an account, or a very similar one, is nevertheless correct. Baker's Incorporation Theory explains in a highly constrained way several related phenomena, but certain adjustments must be made to his analysis which would allow benefactive and possessive datives to be viewed as cases of PL 1. The MasullolBaker account of PI for Spanish datives An interesting analysis of subcategorized datives in Spanish is that of Masullo (1990), following Baker (1988), in which the head of a subcategorized PP is abstractly incorporated into the verb, leaving the remainder of the PP to be governed by the verb under the Government Transparency Corollary. The physical evidence of the NP's new status is the presence of a dative clitic and the "dummy" preposition a in place of the full P. While the a-phrase receives dative case from the verb, under Baker's UTAH it retains the thematic role it received from the full lexical preposition: (1)

a.

Le compré el carro a Rebeca "I bought the car from Rebeca"

However, this analysis, interesting as it is, has not fully taken certain data into account. There are several possible readings for datives in Spanish which are outside the scope of the theta grid of the verb with which they appear. In particular, no verb assigns a benefactive or possessive role to its arguments1: (2)

a. b.

c.

Mario le abrió la puerta a su marna Mario CL opened the door A his mother Mario abrió la puerta de su mama (Possessive paraphrase) Mario opened the door of his mother "Mario opened his mother's door" Mario abrió la puerta para su mama (Benefactive paraphrase) Mario opened the door for his mother "Mario opened the door for his mother"

1 This is also true of ethical datives and datives of interest, but since these are not the result of PI, I will not treat them here. See, however, Pool (1990, forthcoming) for a discussion of these.

NON-THEMATIC DATIVES IN SPANISH

321

A verb like abrir is a two-place predicate which takes an agent and a theme. To assume that the benefactive or possesive dative is an underlying argument is to assume that abrir can be turned into a three-place predicate, a clear violation of the Projection Principle. The assignation of a possessor-possessee relationship between the dative and an internal argument is clearly something which is outside the lexical possibilities of the verb: the only relationships which depend on the verb are those between arguments and the verb itself. As far as the benefactive goes, Jackendoff has put the central reason for not considering it an argument quite well: ...[N]otice that the indirect object in Beneficiary double objects still behaves semantically like an adjunct, despite its intimate syntactic contact with the verb. There is nothing in the inherent meaning of singing an aria, peeling a grape, or fixing a sandwich that requires an intended Beneficiary - one could just be doing these things for the hell of it (Jackendoff 1990b:448).

2. Possessor Raising as Preposition Incorporation of a genitive phrase The instances of Possessor Raising in Spanish are similar to those in other Romance languages in that the genitive complement of a VP-internal NP alternates with a dative argument of the verb: (3)

a. b. c.

Maria lavó la cara [de su hija] Maria lei lavó la cara [a su hija]i *Maria le lavó la cara [de su hija] "Maria washed her daughter's face"

(4)

a. b. c.

Pepe cargo la mochila [de su hermano menor] Pepe lei cargo la mochila [a su hermano menor]i *Pepe le cargo la mochila [de su hermano menor] "Pepe carried his younger brother's bookbag"

In sentences (3)-(4)b, the genitive complement of the direct object DP has been assigned dative case after incorporation of the preposition de, as per Baker's GTC. Although I think that Masullo's (1990) account of PI to explain subcategorized datives is correct, I differ with his proposal concerning Possessor Raising: he treats PR as a case of V-N reanalysis, in which the head of the direct object DP abstractly incorporates into the V. The details of this analysis are not spelled out, and I think they cannot be: the question of what

322

POOL

happens to the head of the DP, to any NP adjuncts or complements or to the intervening genitive preposition de is not clear at all. Instead, I propose an account along the lines of his PI account of subcategorized datives. This account relies crucially on Rizzi's (1982, 1990) analysis of extraction from subjects in Romance languages: subject extraction is allowed only if a subject may be postposed. At first this seems to have nothing to do with genitive phrases, but for X' Theory, any specifier position is in some sense a subject position. Among other things, it follows that if Spanish permits the postposition of subjects, it should permit the postposition of genitives, which we know actually happens in Spanish. In a sentence like (5): (5)

El peluquero lei cortó el pelo [al nino]i "The barber cut the child's hair"

the pertinent parts of the DS, SS and PF representations might be as in (6):


323

At D-Structure, the genitive phrase is found in Spec of DP, that is, it is adjoined to D' and precedes it2. In (6)b, the Spec of D has been moved to the other side of the NP. Since, according to Rizzi, there are now no barriers to movement, the genitive preposition de has abstractly incorporated into the verb in (6)c, leaving a trace which is properly governed, so that no violation of the ECP occurs 3 . The GTC assures that the remainder of the PP will have the trappings of dative case at PF. 2

There is some evidence to indicate that Spec (D) is the proper place for the genitive part of an NP. One is that bare nominals (N) cannot take a genitive (i-ii), although they can take other kinds of adjuncts (iii-iv): (i) *Juan tomó café de su marna (compare with Juan tomó el café de su marna) (ii) *Café de su marna es lo que quiere tomar (compare with Café es lo que quiere tomar) (iii) Juan tomó cafe con leche (iv) Café con leche es lo que quiere tomar For this to be the case, the genitive phrase must be in the DP rather than in the NP. In Old Spanish, full PPs were allowed in this position, but I suggest a "spelling rule" for Modern Spanish which makes postposing of full genitives obligatory. 3 The DP which is sister to V is L-marked by V, so there are no barriers to movement for elements within the DP. V c-commands P, and minimality is respected.

324

POOL

3. Benefactives as Preposition Incorporation of an adjunct That the genitive phrases which enter into PR are not verbal arguments is quite clear. Benefactives, on the other hand, have received treatment both as argument and adjunct phrases4. The fact is that they seem to have the attributes of both. I will present evidence from Spanish to show that this is actually the case. Benefactives were long taken, more or less without question, to be garden variety thematic roles. However, certain linguists have argued convincingly that benefactives have many of the properties of adjuncts. There are two facts about benefactive constructions which reinforce this line of thinking. One is that, according to Rizzi (1986), any missing role in a verbal domain should have a generic or non-specific reading. However, while this is true for examples (7), (8) and (9), the only possible reading for a sentence like (10)b (as opposed to (10)a) is that Juan is doing his own homework, not that he is doing homework for other (unspecified) people: (7)

a. b.

El maestro le conto el cuento a Pepe (Goal) El maestro pro conto el cuento "The teacher told (Pepe) the story"

(8)

a. b.

Bárbara le dejó el vuelto a su mamá (Locative) Bárbara pro dejó el vuelto "Barbara left (her mother) the change"

(9)

a. b.

Juan le compró un coche a su amigo (Source) Juan pro compró un coche "Juan bought a car (from his friend)"

(10) a. b.

Juan le hace la tarea a Pepe (Benefactive) "Juan does Pepe's homework for him" Juan hace la tarea "Juan does his (own) homework"

The other is that in the corresponding Spanish sentences with unincorporated benefactive PPs {Juan hace la tarea {por/paraj Pepe), these PPs are not arguments but adjuncts. Although Baker (1988) insists that only 4

Reasons for treating benefactives as arguments can be found in Baker (1988) and 1991, among others. Those presenting evidence in favor of the adjunct hypothesis are, inter alia, Gawron (1983), Jackendoff (1990b) and Pool (1990).


325

benefactives which are subcategorized for can incorporate, in Spanish this seems not to be the case, since there is apparently no limit to the alternation of por or para benefactives with dative ones. This is in contradistinction to other types of PP which sometimes are arguments and sometimes adjuncts. For instance, in the case of Spanish locatives and comitatives, only those which are actually arguments of the verb in whose domain they appear alternate with datives: (11) a. b.

La cocinera echó sal en el guisado La cocinera le echó sal al guisado "The cook put salt in the stew"

(12) a. b.

Vi ala ganta en el jardin *Le vi a la gatita al jardin "I saw the kitten in the garden"

(13) a. b.

Juan jugó un partido de tenis con Pepe Juan Ie jugó un partido de tenis a Pepe "Juan played a game of tennis with Pepe"

(14) a. b.

Maria fue al cine con su hermana * Maria le fue al cine a su hermana "Maria went to the movies with her sister"

Example (11) is a subcategorized locative, which incorporates readily, as seen in (11)b. (12) is an adjunctive locative, which does not incorporate. (13) is a subcategorized comitative. It has no trouble undergoing PI, while the nonsubcategorized comitative of (14) cannot. Examples (7)-(14) indicate that benefactives are neither prototypical arguments nor prototypical adjuncts. One last meditation on argument structure will serve to show that the status of benefactives must be rethought: it seems to be the case that the maximum number of places any predicate can have in Spanish is three. Syntactically, these boil down to a subject, a direct object and another subcategorized XP 5 . If the XP in question is a PP, it may incorporate into a dative. Assuming that three arguments is indeed the limit, then if a benefactive can occur along with three arguments, it would seem to be a good sign that the benefactive is not itself an argument, even though it can often 5

That is to say, the only cases of four-place predicates come about if one insists on including benefactives as arguments, as suggested in (1991) and references cited therein

326

POOL

incorporate in these constructions. There are several examples of this in Spanish: (15) a. b.

El caballerango amarró el caballo a la estaca por Maria El caballerango Ie amarró el caballo a la estaca a Maria "The stable hand tied the horse to a post for Maria"

(16) a. b.

Fernando tiró los papeles a la basura por Manuela Fernando le tiró los papeles a la basura a Manuela "Fernando threw the papers in the trash for Manuela"

In examples (15)a and (16)a, the PPs a la estaca and a la basura are the goal (or locative) arguments. However, in (15)b and (16)b, it is not the goal PPs that have undergone incorporation, but the benefactives. Given the limitation on the number of subcategorized arguments, it is not possible that both the benefactive and the goal are arguments. There are many syntactic tests which will show that goals in these examples are indeed arguments. The only conclusion left is that benefactives are adjuncts which incorporate. I am not the first person to suggest that certain adjuncts undergo PI. Weir (1990:326-327) has data to show that there is PI (in this case, postposition incorporation) of adjuncts in Nadëb, while Watters (1989) gives several examples of the same phenomenon in Tepehua. Sentences (17)-(19) are examples of the incorporation of unsubcategorized locatives and comitatives in Nadëb: (17) Nadëb (Weir 1990) Subih a -hing kad sii kad Subih sii -hing Subih FORM-go.downriver uncle with uncle Subih with go. downriver "Subih went downriver with uncle" (18) kalaak dab Subih a wuh kaat sii kaat Subih sii -wuh kalaak dab ha hen meat Subih FORM-eat aunt with aunt Subih with-eat hen meat DAT "Subih is eating chicken with aunt" (19) éé a -hing hxóóh go hxóóh éé ga-hing father FORM-go.downriver canoe in canoe father in -go.downriver "Father goes downriver in a canoe"


327

Tepehua allows PI incorporation of such non-arguments as directionals (lhi:-), comitatives (t'a:-), instruments (pu:-) and benefactives (-ni). Of these, the direction prefix may have temporal, reason and direction readings, among others. The instrumental prefix may also have temporal and manner readings: (20) Tepehua (Watters 1989) ta'ayw.cha lhi:-chiwi:ni-y who DIR-speak -IMPF "Who is X talking about" or "Who is talking about X" (21) kin -t'a: -mi -I lOBJ-COM-come-PFV "X came with me" (22) pu: -tapa:tsa:-l ix -chi:tah INST-work -PFV 3POSS-machete "X worked with his machete" (23) ki -malkula: -ni -l lOBJ-light.fire-BEN-PFV "X lit the fire for me" Several suggestions have been made for handling these facts. Watters mentions Marantz's (1984) merger account, which is not constrained by the ECP, or the possibility of lexical redundancy rules to account for the mapping between the lexical form of applicatives and their interpretation. As Watters notes: Clearly neither the merger approach nor the lexicalist approach would be as constrained as one involving incorporation in that they would allow much more variation cross-linguistically. Nevertheless, if we are to have an adequate account of such constructions it seems we must loosen the constraints (Watters 1989:18).

Jackendoff (1990b:448) (following Oehrle, 1976, Grimshaw, 1988, and Pinker, 1989) also mentions the possibility of a lexical rule which optionally adds a benefactive argument to transitive verbs of creation and preparation, so that the indirect object becomes marked by the verb. Additionally, he refers to his own (1990a, ch. 9) proposal of an interpretive rule which permits a benefactive adjunct to be expressed in argument position with these verbs, so that the indirect object recieves a role independently of the verb.

328

POOL

While these seem to be interesting possiblities, and deserve being looked into, I propose that we "loosen the restrictions" by changing the notion of what counts as proper government in these cases as well as reformulating the structure assigned to benefactive adjuncts. If benefactives have the characteristics of both arguments and adjuncts, placing them in the canonical position of either would make it impossible to explain why they share the attributes of the other. I would like to suggest, then, that there is an intermediate position between that of arguments and adjuncts that contains precisely this sort of element, which I will call a thematic adjunct. These are depicted schematically in (24):

These thematic adjuncts would include the category of benefactives in Spanish. The reformulation of the notion of proper government is the following: let us say that a trace is properly governed if it is in an m-command relationship with the head that governs it, in this case the verb. In the mcommand relation, the head m-commands everything that is within its maximal projection. The thematic adjunct would then be properly governed, as would any complement of V, and PI of the benefactive phrase would be allowed just as PI of a complement would. True adjuncts do not fall within the VP, so they do not enter into the m-command relation and thus cannot incorporate. It seems that what is allowed as a thematic adjunct varies from language to language. In Tepehua, instruments, directives and benefactives can occupy this position, whereas in Spanish only the benefactive may. In Nadëb, thematic adjuncts may include extremely circumstantial elements, as we saw in examples (17)-(19). Parenthetically, since much has been made of Strozer's (1976) analysis of indirect objects in Spanish, I would like to point out where I think her IND1IND2 classification stands in regard to the present analysis. Basically, as I see it, her distinction is between the class of ditransitive verbs whose third


329

argument is a PP with the lexical preposition a (which optionally incorporates into a double object construction) vs. a list of transitive verbs whose only possible third argument is a benefactive. Her classification, while simpler than the one I have used, is not trivial, because the fact that the IND2 class (the benefactive-only class) consists essentially of verbs of creation and preparation tells us something about the way thematic roles function with different semantic classes of verbs, something we need to know rather more about. 4. Ambiguity among thematic roles, benefactives, possessives I have mentioned before that possessives and benefactives pattern with subcategorized datives. When one confronts the raw data from Spanish, the possible interpretations of these phrases in the language is inordinately complex. Many, if not most, of these constructions have more than one possible reading, and it is often hard to tell where one interpretation leaves off and another begins. An incorporation account of Spanish subcategorized and adjunctive datives helps to explain some of these ambiguities. This has to do with the fact that the many possible sources for the dative clitic have been obliterated in the process of incorporation: it is the verb that now assigns the theta role, rather than a whole series of lexically distinct prepositions. For example, benefactive and possessive readings are often both possible, and in some cases overlap so totally that only the most sophisticated contextual clues can disambiguate them. This was th e case in (2), and is also the case in these examples: (25) a.

b.

Araceli le acabó el trabajo a Martha "Araceli finished Martha's job" "Araceli finished the job for Martha" Estos papeles le acreditan el parentesco con el Sr. Salinas "These papers prove his kinship with Mr. Salinas" "These papers prove the kinship with Mr. Salinas for him"

Ambiguity between possessive and source/goal readings is also possible, for much the same reason: there is an underlying de phrase that can either be a verbal argument or a genitive adjunct to an NP: (26) a.

Fernando le adquirió los boletos a Marco "Fernando got {the tickets for Marco/Marco's tickets/the tickets from Marco}" (Benefactive, Possessive and Source readings, respectively)

330

POOL

b.

Rodrigo le pagó los impuestos a Rafael "Rodrigo paid {the taxes for Rafael/Rafael's taxes/taxes to Rafael}" (Benefactive, Possessive and Goal readings, respectively)

I should like to point out, in closing, that there are two interesting points which arise in the light of these alternations. The first is that the ambiguities are so numerous that it seems to have impeded a classification that is easy enough to work with that the theory can shed some light on what is going on. Everyone who gets into this topic has a different idea of what the data are, so the analyses tend to be willy-nilly. The second point is that non-thematic datives alternate with thematic datives, as in examples (26) and (27) above, without violating the Theta Criterion. It is hard to see how any other analysis outside PI could explain this: PI allows these non-arguments to be treated as syntactic arguments, and apparently allows the theta role underlyingly assigned by the P to 'count' as far as the Theta Criterion is concerned.

REFERENCES Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Demonte, Violeta. 1991. "Dos clases de objetos indirectos, la construcción de doble objeto y el alcance de las estructuras larsonianas". Segundo Encuentro de Lingüistas y Filólogos de Espana y México, Salamanca, November 2 5 29. Gawron, Mark. 1983. Lexical representations and the semantics of complementation. Doctoral dissertation, University of California-Berkeley. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990a. Semantic structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . 1990b. "On Larson's treatment of the double object construction". LI 21.427-456. Grimshaw, Jane. 1988. "Getting the dative alternation". MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10. Cambridge, MA: Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Masullo, Pascual José. 1990. "Prepositional phrase-dative alternations in Spanish". Ms. University of Washington, Seattle.


331

Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Pinker, Stephen. 1989. The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pool, Marianna. 1990. Papeles temáticos y relaciones sintäcticas: un estudio de argumentos verbales del espanol. Doctoral dissertation, El Colegio de México. . In press. "Dativos no temáticos en el espanol: Apuntes para un estudio comparado". Rebeca Barriga and Josefina Garcia (eds.), Nuestra lengua y nuestra literatura quinientos anos después. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. "Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro" LI 17. 501— 557. Strozer, Judith. 1976. Clitics in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Watters, James. 1989. "The syntax of applicatives in Tepehua (Totonacan)". LSA paper. Weir, E. M. Helen. 1990. "Incorporation in Nadëb". D. L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.

RESTRICTING RELATIVIZED MINIMALITY: THE CASE OF ROMANCE CLITICS* JOHAN ROORYCK Indiana University 1.

Introduction Throughout the Romance languages, enclitic ordering in positive imperatives is obligatory. Romance languages in which the verb moves up to the agreement projection in infinitives also display enclitic ordering (Kayne 1991). In this paper, we will first restate this descriptive generalization as a property of the agreement morphemes associated with [- realized] tense: the imperative agreement morphology in C° and the infinitival agreement morphology in AGR-S° force the clitics to stay behind in the lower morphological head. We claim that this property of imperative and infinitival agreement morphology derives from their status as anaphors defined in the sense of the Binding theory. Since clitics are also defined in terms of the Binding theory (as pronouns or anaphors), the anaphoric infinitival and imperative agreement morphemes would block the government relation between the clitic and its trace in the sense of Rizzi's (1990) Relativized Minimality. The agreement morphemes in (nonimperative, noninfinitival) tensed clauses are not defined in terms of Binding and therefore lack this blocking property. In this way, the striking generalization involving enclitic ordering in Romance can be explained by general principles of the grammar. In all Romance languages, clitics have to follow a non-negated imperative. This is illustrated for French, Italian and Spanish and European Portuguese in (1): (1)

a. Fais-le! (Fr.)/ Falo! (It.)/ Hazlo! (Sp.)/ Fd-lo! (Port.) 'Do2pers.sg-itcl!'

* I would like to thank Judy Bernstein, Marcel den Dikken, Brian Joseph, Richard Kayne and Raffaella Zanuttini for written comments and Pierre Pica for long distance inspiration. Thanks also to Leslie Gabriele for the data of Brazilian Portuguese and to Aleksander Murzaku for Albanian.

334

ROORYCK

b. * Le fais!/ * Lo fa!/ * Lo haz!/ * O faz! 'itcl do2pers.sg.!' The observation also holds for Catalan, Romanian, Sardinian (Jones 1988:337), Rhaeto-Romance (Haiman 1988:377), and Corsican (Albertini 1972:45) in (2):1 (2)

a. Fes-ho! (Cat.) / Pune-o! (Rom.) /Pikalu (Sard.) / 'Do2pers.sg itcl!/ 'Set2pers.sg. itcl!/Take2pers.sg. itcl!/ Do m! (Rh. Rom) 'Give2pers.sg- mecl!' b.Dálluli I Dâllilu (Cors.) 'Give2pers.sg. itcl to-himcl / Give2pers.sg. to-himcl itcl'

The enclitic ordering in positive imperatives is not restricted to Romance, but also extends to other genetically unrelated languages: Albanian (3ab), (Newmark et al. 1982 quoted by Rivero 1988), Modern Greek (3c), and Modern Macedonian (Joseph 1983): (3)

a.Digje! 'Burnimp2sg itcl' b. Mos e digi ! 'Neg itcl burnimp2sg.' c. Grapse to! 'Writeimp2sg itcl'

Rivero (1988: fnlO(ia)) Rivero (1988: fnlO(ib)) Rivero (1988:(45))

Surprisingly, the observation holds even for languages which never allow clitics to follow the verb otherwise. In French for instance, the only case where clitics follow the verb is in the positive imperative. It is well known for instance 1

The observation also extends to those Romance dialects which are diachronically of the 'langue d'oïl' type. Rézean (1976:69) gives examples from Vendéen: dun mœ là 'give2pers.sg. to-meci itcl', and Remacle (1952:250) for Walloon: prinds-è 'take2pers.sg. of-itcl'. For Occitan, Sauzet (1986:153) observes that imperatives display enclitic ordering: Dona-li de pan Give2pers.sg. himcl some bread'. This observation is confirmed for the different Occitan dialects by data attested in the versions of the Parabole de l'enfant prodigue cited in Bec (1967), e.g. Auvergnat: vòstre ben e bailatz-me çô que deve aver (i) Partatjatz 'Divide2pers.HON your goods and give2pers.HON. mecl that what I should have' For Gascon, these data are confirmed by Rohlfs (1977:185): da m'oc 'give2pers.sg. to-mecl itcl'. Interestingly, as illustrated in (2b), the respective ordering of accusative and dative clitics in Corsican is free (Albertini 1972:44-45).

RESTRICTING RELATIVIZED MINIMALITY

335

that in Spanish and Italian (8a) the clitics follow the infinitive (see Kayne 1991a for an analysis of this phenomenon), but in French this option is excluded: (4)

a. Quiero hacerlol Vogliofarlo 'I want to do itcl'

b. Je veux le faire/ * faire le 'I want to itcl do/ do itd'

This striking generalization is a major puzzle for contrastive linguistics: why do so many languages exhibit this particular ordering of clitics with imperatives? It could of course be claimed that there is a rule postposing clitics in positive imperatives, but such a solution would fall short of explaining why this specific ordering is required across languages in the first place. If the postverbal ordering were rule-governed or subject to some low level grammatical constraint, one would expect much more variation crosslinguistically than what is actually the case. The issue is an interesting one when viewed from the perspective of a modular grammar in which modules and principles interact to generate acceptable sentences. In such a framework, the postverbal ordering of clitics with positive imperatives is likely to involve a very general principle of the grammar. It is likely that the same principle which is responsible for enclitic ordering in imperatives is also responsible for enclitic ordering in Spanish and Italian infinitives. We would like to show that the position of clitics in both imperatives and infinitives follows from such a very general principle operating in the syntax which involves the core relation of government, Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990). Relativized Minimahty can be defined as follows (Rizzi 1990:): (5) X a-governs Y only if there is no Z such that (i) Z is in a base-generated position (ii) Z is a typical potential a-governor for Y (iii) Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X where a-government ranges over A, A', and X° government This means that in a linear syntactic string X - Y - Z, X cannot govern Z if an element Y intervenes which is in the same type of phrase structure position (argument, non-argument or head position) as X and Z. Let us take an example from Rizzi (1990:11(24)) to make this clear: (6)

a. They could have left b. Could they t have left c. "Have they could t left

X°could — Y°have X°could — Y° tcould— X°have * X°have — Y°could — Z° thave

336

ROORYCK

In (6c), have has moved to a position (C°) from which it cannot govern its trace, since another head, the modal could, intervenes between have and its trace. Since the trace of have is not governed, the sentence is ruled out by the Empty Category Principle which states that every trace should be governed. We would like to show that the grammatical mechanism which excludes (6c) also excludes (lb). It is our purpose to show how a modular theory of syntax can explain the at first sight puzzling generalization involving clitic ordering in imperatives. In order to achieve this goal, we will assume the groundbreaking work of the last few years on the multi-layered nature of functional categories (Pollock 1989, Belletti 1990), and the incorporation of clitics (Kayne 1989). Let us first try to show how the problem of enclitic ordering in positive imperatives can be formulated in the framework assumed here. Following Baker (1988) and Kayne (1989, 1991a), it will be assumed that the core position of clitics in Romance is obtained by adjunction (incorporation) of the X° clitics to the left of the verb. The verb then subsequently moves to its functional projections where it adjoins first to the left of T° and subsequently to AGR-S° (Belletti 1990). Adjunction to the left of the functional projections ensures that the verbs picks up tense features in T° before receiving agreement features, following Belletti (1990) in assuming that AGR-S° selects TP.2 Furthermore, we will accept with Rivero (1988) that positive imperatives as in (1-2) involve head movement of the V-T-AGR complex to C°. This movement to C° can be motivated. First of all, imperatives express a modality (close to the classical grammarian's definition of irrealis/potentialis) that can be associated with the temporal/ modal C° morpheme. Rivero (1988) claims that the imperative C° makes the verb function as a performative operator. Moreover, several languages have specific morphemes for imperatives which differ from indicative or subjunctive morphology and which must be associated with a distinct functional category. Rivero (1988) labels this type of imperatives 'true' imperatives for the languages of the Balkans, as opposed to 'surrogate' imperatives which correspond to morphologically existing tenses in the system (cfr (3)). In this respect, Rivero (1988) claims that negation prevents the verb from moving beyond AGR-S 0 and T° to its specific morphology in C° beyond NegP. This is an important argument in favor of movement to C° in imperatives, since it allows for an explanation of the contrast in (7ab).3 1

Bernstein (1991) has suggested that this is not the case in nominal projections in Romance. 3 The behavior of clitics in negated imperatives is subject to variation. Kayne (1991b) observes that in Northern Italian, the enclitic ordering in negative imperatives (7b) is by far preferred to the proclitic ordering which is common in the dialects of the Center. This distribution is paralleled in the infinitival imperatives (8) of these dialects:


337

Spanish, Catalan, and Portuguese negated imperatives which use the subjunctive morphology do not allow for the enclitic option. The following are from Spanish: (7)

a.Hazlo! / Hagalo! / Hagamoslo 'Do2sgIMP itcl/ do2sg.HON.SUBJ itcl! (honorific)/Dolpers.pl itcl! (exhortative) ' b. No lo hagas! / * Nolo haz! 'Neg itcl do2sgSUBJ (not honorific)' c. * No hagaslo / * No hagalo 'Neg do2sgSUBJ itcl/ Neg do3sg SUBJ itcl(honorific you)

In (7a), the verb moves all the way to its specific morphology in C°. In (7b), however, it does not move any farther than AGR-S°, since negation blocks movement of the verb to C°.4 It can be assumed that the imperative morphology in C° which cannot be expressed in negative imperatives functions in many Romance dialects as an operator triggering the subjunctive morphology in the lower AGR-S° and T° (7b). The 'true' imperative morphology in C° and the subjunctive morphology in AGR-S° and T° then behave as allomorphs which are triggered by the relative position of the verb. The subjunctive morphology appears in the same way as in embedded clauses which are (i)a. Non lo fate! (=Kayne 1991b:(47)) b. Non fatelo! (=Kayne 1991b:(48)) "Neg itcl doinf' 'Neg itcl do2 pl ' (ii)a. Non farlo! (=Kayne 1991b:(4)) b. Non lo fare! (=Kayne 1991b:(5)) 'Neg doinf itcl 'Neg itcl doinf' The possibility for clitics to precede or follow the negated imperative is also reported for Rhaeto-Romance (Haiman 1988: 377). 4 Zanuttini (1991:75-79) argues against Rivero's (1988) analysis of negation blocking movement to C°. Zanuttini (1991) argues that if negation were to block movement to C°, negative gerundival adverbial clauses such as (i) in Italian should be out, since they involve V° to C° movement under Rizzi's (1982) classical analysis, (i) Non avendo Mario accetiaio di aiuiarci, non potremo risolvere il problema 'Mario not having accepted to help us, we won't be able to solve the problem.' However, it might be that the movement-blocking capacity of negation does not apply to the auxiliaries essere 'be' and avere 'have' which more closely resemble functional categories. It could be that negation only blocks 'strong' verbs which are fully lexical categories. Restricting our attention to imperatives, it is certainly true that the order negation + imperative + clitic exists in Romance, as in (7b). Kayne notes that this order is attested only in those Romance dialects that have the order infinitive + clitic. If blocking of V to C by negation were simply contrained language specifically, there would be no explanation for this correlation. In the analysis adopted below, this correlation can be explained by the assumption that languages with the order negation + imperative + clitic do not have an anaphoric AGR (cfr infra) in C°, but (optionally) realize this anaphoric AGR° as an AGR°(-S) selecting [tensed] T° in both infinitives and imperatives (See § 3 for the analysis of this case).

338

ROORYCK

governed by a verb ruling the subjunctive: in these cases, the value of C° which is lexically determined by the governing V also triggers the subjunctive in the embedded T°. Rivero's (1988) claim that the morphology of 'true' imperatives is located in C° hence seems to be well motivated. In itself, head movement of the verbal complex to C° cannot explain why clitics have to stay behind in AGR-S°. In principle, the complement clitics should move with the V° - T° - AGR-S° complex to C°. After all, in declarative sentences the cl-V° complex successively moves to T° and AGR-S°, yielding (8a) with the structure in (8b): 5 (8) a. Tu le regardais 'You it/ himcl watched' b. [CP C° [AGR-S-P Tu L A G R - S ' [ A G R - S O [ T ° [ C 1 O - V ° le

[V° regard]} ai T ° ] S ] [TP ... [VP]]]]] Within the general framework sketched so far, the question with clitic ordering in positive Romance imperatives is to understand why the verb alone moves to C°, since this obviously is the exceptional case. W e would like to say that this is due to the nature of C° in imperatives. Imperatives not only have specific truth conditions that may be determined by C°, they also have specific agreement properties which are restricted to second person singular and plural (honorific or not), or to first person plural for the exhortative (cfr (9a)). Extending to root clauses Rizzi's (1990) suggestion that embedded C°s in English can either contain either the complementizer that or a nonovert AGR-C°, we would like to suggest that these restricted AGR features are due to an 5

The representation of the amalgamated verb under AGR-S° is simplified for purposes of illustration. As it stands, the representation is not very intuitive since it suggests that the clitics are more closely connected to the verbal stem than the verbal affix. Taking into account Roberts' (1991) discussion of the difference in incorporation of clitics and verbal affixes, the proper representation under AGR-S° in (14b) would have to reflect this different relation. For Roberts (1991), cliticization involves adjunction at the X° level, while affixation takes place at a sublexical level X"1. This difference of incorporation captures the difference of connectivity between clitics and affixes. Roberts' (1991) analysis does not have major consequences for the analysis which will be developed here in terms of Relativized Minimality. For Roberts (1991), X"1 affixes do count as intervening governors for the trace of incorporated V°. Pursuing the logic of Roberts (1991) analysis, X"1 affixes must also be intervening governors for the traces of incorporated X° clitics which are sisters to V°. For our analysis of the postverbal ordering of clitics in imperatives, this means that the AGR-C° imperative morphology can act as an intervening governor for the relation between the clitic incorporated under AGR-C° and the trace of the clitic in AGR-S°. The simplification in (14) and in the other representations in this paper are justified since it has no direct consequences for the analysis to be developed.


339

imperative AGR morpheme in C°. Let us call this imperative C° with agreement features AGR-C°. The fact that AGR0 features are present in C° is particularly plausible in view of the observations by Rivero (1988) and Zanuttini (1991) that languages which display specific imperative morphology do not allow this morphology to show up in negative imperatives. Interestingly, the hypothesis that an AGR° morpheme is in some way responsible for enclitic ordering can be extended to the postverbal ordering of clitics in Spanish and Italian infinitives. There is evidence from the position of temporal adjuncts that the verb moves up to AGR-S° in Spanish and Italian, but not in French. The ordering of adverbs with respect to tensed verbs and infinitives has allowed Pollock (1989) to argue that tensed verbs in French move up to AGR-S° beyond the adverb souvent 'often' in (9a). Infinitives stay put in their base position, or in a position below the adverb (9b). (9)

a. Marie (*souvent) parle (souvent) de lui 'Mary (often) talks (often) about him' b. Marie prétend [(souvent) parler (*souvent) de lui] 'Mary claims to (often) talk (often) about him'

Belletti (1990) argues that Italian differs from French in that infinitives moves up to AGR-S° in the same way as tensed verbs. The main argument for this is the position of adverbs, which is the same in both cases: (10) a. Maria (*spesso) parlava (spesso) di lui 'Mary (often) talks (often) about him' b. Maria sostiene di (*spesso) parlare (spesso) di lui 'Mary claims to (often) talk (often) about him' This description has been further refined by Kayne (1991). Kayne (1991a) claims that in French, V° moves up with its clitics to an INF projection containing the infinitival morphology which is added to the verbal stem. This projection is preceded by adverbs of the souvent 'often' type, exemplified in (11b). Sardinian moves the clitic + infinitival V° complex up to T° and has an order clitic + infinitive + adverb as in (11b) (Kayne 1991a). In Italian and Spanish, following Belletti (1988), the infinitival V° moves up to AGR-S°, leaving behind its clitics in T° (cfr (4a) and (11c)). (11) a. ...AGR-S°... T°... ADV ...[[CL° [ V°]] INF°]...t[cl° [V°]] (French)

340

ROORYCK

b. ...AGR-S°...[[[CL° [ V°]] INF°] T°] ... ADV ...t[[cl° [V°]] INF°] ... t[cl° [V°]] (Sardinian) c ...[[[tcl° [ V°]] INF°] T°] AGR-S°]... t[[[CL0[V0]] INF°] T°]... ADV ...t[[cl° [V°]] INF0]... t[cl° [V°]] (Italian, Spanish) Again, it seems that the infinitival AGR-S° somehow forces clitics to be left behind in Italian and Spanish. In French, the verb does not move up to AGRS°. Consequently, clitics remain in their left-adjoined position to the verb. We may then formulate the following approximative generalization: (12) Whenever a verb is related through movement with the AGR° morphemes associated with imperative or infinitival morphology, it must leave clitics behind. This formulation captures both the case of Italian - Spanish where clitics follow the verb since the verb has moved up to AGR-S°, and the case of French - Sardinian where the verb has not moved high enough for it to leave its clitics behind. Why is this the case? What properties of this morphology enable it to force clitics to be left behind when the verb moves up? Let us therefore analyze in some detail the feature composition of the functional categories involved in imperatives and infinitives. 2. The infinitival AGR~S° and the imperative AGR-C° as anaphors Infinitives and imperatives are similar in many respects: both imperatives and infinitives do not license overt subjects. For Beukema & Coopmans (1989), this is due to the [- tensed] value of the temporal morphemes in imperatives and infinitives which do not allow nominative case to be assigned to the subject position. This claim has to be modified to the extent that the temporal value of imperatives certainly is not characterized by the absence of tense. Contrary to the suggestion by Beukema & Coopmans (1989), it cannot be the case that imperatives have a [-tensed] feature which would be more or less identical to that of infinitives: Latin has a temporal morpheme for the future imperative: (13)

a.ama 'loveIMP.PRES..2pers.sg.' c. amate 'loveIMP.PRES.2pers.pl.'

b.amato 'loveIMP.FUT.2pers.sg.' d. amatote 'loveIMP.FUT.2pers.pl.'

It is more accurate to say that the tense of imperatives is restricted to non past tense. It remains true however that past imperative morphology does not


341

seem to exist. It might therefore be useful to characterize the temporal/ modal value of imperatives as [- realized], a temporal/ modal value which is compatible with future, but not with past interpretation. This characterization has been proposed for the tense of infinitives by Stowell (1982). This definition of the tense of infinitives is not new. It has long been noted that the semantic interpretation of the infinitival morphology corresponds to a temporal/ modal notion. Bresnan (1972) observes that infinitival complements refer to 'something hypothetical or unrealized'. Guillaume (1929) had already defined the infinitival tense as a tense 'in posse': it expresses 'potential' time, or eventuality, which is opposed to tense 'in esse', a 'real' or finite time reference linked to the time axis. Stowell (1982) makes a similar observation stating that the tense of infinitives must be semantically interpreted as unrealized or as a 'possible future'. Reinterpreting Beukema & Coopmans (1989), we then propose that imperatives and infinitives have the temporal feature [- realized] in common rather than the feature [- tensed]. How can this common [- realized] property of infinitives and imperatives be related to the position of clitics in these cases? In order to offer an answer to this question, we have to take a closer look at the AGR° morphemes that are associated with [- realized] T° morphemes. During the 1980's it has repeatedly been argued that control theory can be partially reduced to Binding theory, since the infinitival PRO takes the sentence in which the infinitive is embedded as the domain in which its antecedent is to be found. In the following sentence, the infinitival subject (the anaphoric AGR-S°) cannot be bound by the subject of a superordinate clause: (14) You said that Harry promised to shave himself/ *yourself Borer (1989) has argued that the AGR-S° of infinitives is what is anaphoric in nature rather than the PRO subject of infinitives. Let us assume that this is indeed the case.6 To say that the infinitival AGR-S° is anaphoric in nature is 6

Contra Borer (1989), Rooryck (1991) argues that AGR-S° does not move to C° in order to extend its Binding domain to the matrix clause. Following Kayne (1991a), Rooryck (1991) assumes that the infinitival AGR-S° (PRO for Kayne) cannot be bound in its own X m a x because there is no position which might contain a potential binder. Hence, the next category up is the Binding domain for AGR-S°. Extending insights of Stowell (1982), Rooryck (1991) develops a modular analysis of control in which the matrix verb determines control via aspectual coindexation of the [- realized] C° with aspectual subevents in the event structure of the matrix verb. This lexical coindexation of the infinitival C° restricts Binding of the anaphoric infinitival AGR-S° in the matrix clause. Since the infinitival AGR-S° is coindexed with the infinitival C°, anaphoric AGR-S° can only be bound by those arguments which are lexically represented in the subevent the infinitival C° is coindexed with. In other words, partial coindexation of C° with the governing control verb restricts the Binding antecedents for

342

ROORYCK

tantamount to saying that it is morphologically identical to the overt clitic sel si, which is the anaphoric clitic in Romance. (15) Gianni si vede Giovanni selfcl sees 'Giovanni sees himself' Importantly, now, normal 'tensed' AGR cannot be described in terms of the Binding theory: it is nor an anaphor, nor a pronoun, but simply subject to Spec - Head agreement with whatever is the subject at S- structure. We may conclude that the infinitival T° can be characterized as [- realized], and is associated with an anaphoric AGR-S°. Let us now see how this characterization can be extended to imperatives. From a formal point of view, it is tempting to say that the imperative agreement morphology is at least partly identical to that of infinitives. The reason for this is simplicity: if T° morphemes with [- realized] temporal features are associated with anaphoric AGR-S° in infinitives, it is conceptually simpler to assume that some anaphoric AGR° morpheme is also associated with the [- realized] T° of imperatives: c-selectional properties between functional categories should be identical. At first sight, this cannot be the case: the imperative morphology is certainly distinct from the infinitival morphology. The imperative agreement morphology lacks a complete inflectional paradigm, but shows first and second person endings, unlike infinitives. The imperative tense morphology does not show [+ past] markings, like the infinitival morphology, but unlike the infinitival morphology it can exhibit morphemes for the future and subjunctive endings. It is likely that the subjunctive agreement and temporal morphemes are present in the imperative AGR-S 0 and T°. Recall that we have assumed with Rivero (1988) that negation blocks movement of the verb to C°, triggering subjunctive morphology in most Romance languages. Since the verb does not move beyond AGR-S°, AGR-S° and T° must contain the relevant subjunctive and agreement morphemes. Only when the verb moves to AGR-C° can it receive the properly imperative morphology. For reasons of simplicity, it may then be assumed that the imperative AGR-S° and T° are identical in every respect to 'normal' tensed morphology, since the imperative AGR-S° (2nd person sg. and pl., 1st person. pl.) and T° (subjunctive) morphemes are identical to the morphology of the verb in a tensed sentence. We would like to propose that it is the imperative AGR-C° which bears the [- realized] tense features in an imperative. This actually allows one to make sense of the fact that anaphoric AGR-S°. This analysis of control eliminates control theory, since control arises through a modular interaction of general principles of the grammar.


343

the imperative T° can be subjunctive (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian...) or future (Latin): both the subjunctive mood and the future tense, but not past, are compatible with the feature [- realized] in the imperative AGR-C°. In infrnitives, however, T° itself bears the temporal [- realized] feature and can never exhibit subjunctive, past, or future morphology. We thus derive the fact that the imperative and infinitival tense morphology are syntactically and semantically similar, but not identical. What is the nature of the agreement features associated with the [- realized] AGR-C°?7 We know that there are specific agreement morphemes for imperatives in some Romance languages (cfr supra). Moreover, since we have assumed that the imperative AGR-S° and T° morphemes are identical to those of the tensed morphology, we have to derive the fact that imperatives are restricted to 2nd person sg. and pl. and 1st person pl. It is likely that the imperative AGR-C° is responsible for this restriction, but we have to find independent motivation for this conjecture. We would like to claim that this restriction is due to the basically anaphoric nature of the imperative AGR-C 0 . Let us therefore return to the possible interpretations of clitic anaphors in Romance. In recent work on the properties of reflexive sel si 'self' clitic anaphors in Romance (15), Burzio (1989) and Pica (1987, 1991) suggest that these reflexives are 'defective' morphemes in that they do not have (p-features at DS. Burzio (1989) and Pica (1987, 1991) suggest that the absence of (p-features is a morphological defining property of anaphors. Burzio (1989) moreover proposes that impersonal si 'self' in Italian is equally featureless, but lacks an antecedent since there is no governing category for it. Burzio (1989) proposes that impersonal si 'self' therefore receives a 'default' first person plural interpretation as in (16a). The impersonal si 'self' can however also refer to third person if context is supplied (16b). (16) a. Si è contenti in Italia SELF is happyPL in Italy 'One is happy in Italy'

7

We will not go into the question whether the [- realized] temporal/ modal features of the imperative AGR-C° and its agreement features are to be dissociated in two distinct projections or not. Since this problem is not relevant for the analysis at hand, we will simply assume that AGR-C° bears both the imperative temporal and agreement features. Beukema & Coopmans (1989) and Zanuttini (1991) have suggested that no nominative case can be assigned to the imperative subject, since the imperative T° is [- tensed]. We would like to reinterpret this suggestion and say that the presence of a [- realized] temporal value in C° prevents case assignment to the Spec, IP position.

344

ROORYCK

b. Tutti lo dicevano. Si è contenti in Italia All itcl said. SELF is happypL in Italy 'Everyone said it. One is happy in Italy' Rooryck (1991) has argued that the same is true for anaphoric AGR-S° in certain infinitival clauses. In the cases where the infinitival clause is a complement of a matrix verb, the infinitival anaphoric AGR-S° is bound in its Binding domain, the matrix clause (cfr (14)). When infinitives are not complements of the verb and hence lack thetamarking, there is no Binding domain for the infinitival AGR-S°. In these cases, the infinitival clause will not only act as a barrier for extraction, but also for Binding. This is the case for sentential subjects and infinitival adjuncts. The sentential subject in (17) is preferably interpreted as our/your making noise. (17) PRO making noise at midnight will frighten Sue The fact that PRO in these sentences is preferably interpreted as first or second person has been pointed out by Thompson (1973:377) for adjectival arguments as in (18): (18) 'Bill, tearing up my new paper dolls was mean,' cried Sue This referential property of PRO in sentential subjects has led Van Haaf ten (1982:118) to claim that arbitrary PRO in these cases cannot be interpreted as third person. Bresnan (1982:328) and Vanden Wyngaerd (1994:216) have pointed out that the infinitival subject can be interpreted as referring to a third person if context is supplied: (19) a.Tom felt sheepish. Pinching those elephants was foolish. He shouldn't have done it b. Frankly, I'm worried about Mary. What has she gotten herself into? Don't get me wrong: I think it was fine to join the group. But getting herself photographed with those starving wolves was dangerous. It is important to underscore that control of the infinitival subject in all these cases is not subject to locality restrictions as in (14). Despite examples such as (19), it is striking that the unexpressed subject PRO in infinitival subjects is preferably interpreted as a discourse first or second person referent. Rooryck (1991) shows that the same is true in infinitival adjuncts when the subject of the


345

infinitive does not correspond to the matrix subject.8 Clark (1985) has claimed on the basis of (20) that control in infinitival adjuncts is subject to locality. This claim can be easily falsified. The sentences in (21) show that a nonlocal argument can control the unexpressed subject of a lower adjunct if it is second person, or properly introduced in the discourse: (20) Mary thought that Bill had died after seeing *herselfl himself in the mirror (21) a. So you think now that Bill might have died right after shaving yourself on June 6. Why would that be? b. Mr Freckletweeteri was a very disorderly person at times. Ij see youk have realized now that without PROi/j/k classifying them properly, hisi' s papers would have been irremediably lost for posterity. Rooryck (1991) has pointed out that the interpretation of impersonal si 'self' in (16) is very close to the preferential interpretation of PRO in subject sentences and infinitival adjuncts: in both cases, the interpretation of the subject involves a discourse referent, but it can refer to third person given an appropriate context. The reflexive/ impersonal si 'self' and the AGR-S° in subject sentences and infinitival adjuncts also share a syntactic context: in both cases, the anaphor does not have a governing category. The similarity between the overt reflexive/ impersonal si 'self', and the infinitival AGR-S° warrants an analysis of the infinitival AGR-S° along the same lines: the infinitival AGR-S° is anaphor which can receive a 'default' pronominal interpretation if there is no governing category for it. Importantly, the infinitival AGR-S° is defined in terms of Binding theory. The simplest hypothesis with respect to the nature of AGR-C° in imperatives then is to assume that it is also basically anaphoric in nature. Since imperatives cannot be embedded, there will never be a governing category for the imperative anaphoric AGR-C°, and it will forcibly take a default first or second person pronominal interpretation.9 In this way, the imperative AGR-C° 8 Rooryck (1991) shows that subject control in infinitival adjuncts does not come about via Binding of the infinitival AGR-S0 in the matrix clause, but through a different mechanism. In infinitival adjuncts, the anaphoric AGR-S° has the option of coindexing with the subject through the temporal linking (Hornstein 1990) of the T° morphemes between the matrix and the adjunct clauses. 9 The fact that the imperative agreement morphology is restricted to first or second person is by no means a necessary property of the grammar. In fact, the value of the imperative for third person can very well be expressed in French by a root subjunctive clause with a spelled out complementizer:

346

ROORYCK

effectively restricts the normal tensed morphology in the lower imperative AGR-S° and T° to the attested 'defective' imperative morphology: 2nd person sg. and pl., and 1st person pl. This analysis can be reinforced by the observation that infinitives can be used as imperatives in Romance languages and in many languages not related to Romance. (22) Ne pas faire du bruit! 'Not to make noise!' In the analysis developed here, this interpretation arises from the specific feature contents of the functional categories in the infinitive: the tense features of the infinitive are [- realized], and the infinitival AGR-S° receives a default pronominal 1st or 2nd person interpretation since no governing category is present. The semantic properties of the functional categories in nonembedded infinitives bring them very close to the semantic properties present in the functional categories of imperatives. We may conclude that the claim that the imperative AGR-C° is anaphoric, however paradoxical at first sight, can be well motivated. The default pronominal interpretation of the anaphoric AGR-C° can explain why imperatives are restricted to first and second person. Moreover, the minimal hypothesis with respect to the distribution of anaphoric and nonanaphoric AGR° in the context of other functional categories suggests that anaphoric AGR° should manifest itself in the context of [- realized] T°. Finally, nonembedded infinitives can receive the interpretation of imperatives, a property which would go unexplained if their agreement morphemes had nothing in common. We are then allowed to adopt the strongest hypothesis, and claim that [- realized] T° is always associated with an anaphoric AGR° morpheme. This hypothesis is also the simplest, since it assumes a minimal set of possible interpretations for AGR° morphemes in the grammar. AGR° morphemes are only definable in terms of (i) Qu'il parte s'il n'est pas content! 'That he leave, if he is not pleased!' It should be stressed that these sentences are not to be analyzed as embedded clauses with a suppressed matrix clause, since it is not clear which verb this supposedly suppressed matrix clause should contain. They should be viewed as performative subjunctive clauses. Importantly, in the analysis developed here, the anaphoric status of the imperative AGR-C° allows us to derive this otherwise unmotivated restriction of imperatives to first and second person. The only element that remains unexplained under this analysis is why imperatives cannot refer to contextually introduced third person referents. This problem might be more general, however. In root sentences with impersonal si such as (22), the third person interpretation can only be obtained in context. In imperatives, the performative interpretation may play a role in excluding third person referents.


347

the Binding theory in the context of [- realized] T° (basically anaphoric with the possibility of a default pronominal interpretation). They are not definable in terms of Binding in normal tensed clauses where AGR° is only subject to Spec Head agreement. 3. The anaphoric AGR°(-S/-C°) as intervening governors Coming back to (18) and reinterpreting it, we would like to argue that the definition of the imperative AGR-C° and the infinitival AGR-S° in terms of the Binding theory, is responsible for clitics being left behind in the lower functional category. We have claimed that the infinitival AGR-S° and the imperative AGR-C° are anaphoric in nature, and can have a default pronominal interpretation. As such, they are identical in every respect to the Romance reflexive clitic sel si. Since these functional categories are defined in terms of the Binding theory, they strongly resemble clitics. Clitics are either anaphors (se/ si 'self) or pronouns (French le 'him/ it', lui to-him/ her' etc.). Let us see what happens if the entire clitic-V-T-AGR complex would move to AGR-C° as in (23b). Within the resulting complex, the imperative anaphoric AGR-C° would dominate the clitics which are more deeply embedded in the morphological complex. This is illustrated in (23c): (23) a. Regarde-le b. * Le-regarde 'Watch it/ himcl' 'It/ himcl watch' c [CP [AGR-C°[[[cl°-V° le [V° regard]] e T°] AGR-S° ] AGR-C°] [AGR-S-P t°[[[cl° [Y°]] T°] AGR-S°] [TP [VP]]]] As such, AGR-C° would intervene between the clitic in AGR-C° and that part of the complex trace which corresponds to the clitic. The relevant elements are highlighted in the structure (23c). We would like to claim that the fact that both clitics and the imperative AGR-C° and infinitival AGR-S° morphology are definable in terms of the Binding theory enables these AGR° morphemes to function as intervening governors for a relation between verb-adjoined clitics and their traces in a lower functional category. More concretely, in (23c), the anaphoric AGR-C° is a potential X° governor for the trace of the clitic in the nonanaphoric AGR-S°. Consequently, the trace of the clitic in AGR-S° would not be governed by the clitic in the anaphoric AGR-C°, and the structure is ruled out by the Empty Category Principle, since the trace of the clitic is not governed. The only way for the verb to acquire the imperative morphology in C° is to leave its clitics behind in AGR-S° so as to prevent an ECP violation from arising for its clitic subpart. Exactly the same situation obtains with infinitives in Spanish and Italian (cfr (4a)), but this time it is the anaphoric nature of the infinitival AGR-S° which is

348

ROORYCK

involved. As noted before, the verb in these languages moves up all the way to AGR-S° in infinitival constructions (Belletti 1990). (24) a. Quiero hacerlo b. * Quiero lo hacer 'I want to do itcl' 'I want to itcl do' c. [CP Quiero [CP C° [AGR-S-P [[[[cl°-V° lo[V° hoc]] er T°] AGR-S° ] [TP t°[[cl° [V°]] T°] [VP]]]] The structure (24c) represents the ungrammatical (24b). Since the infinitival AGR-S° is an anaphor, it acts as an intervening governor for Relativized Minimality in (24bc), thus forcing the clitics to stay behind in the infinitival T°. W e are in the presence of the same situation as with imperatives, with the difference that everything happens 'one notch down'. 10 In French (4b), no such configuration involving Relativized Minimality can arise since the verb stays down in a projection lower than AGR-S°. Consequently clitics are allowed to stay attached to the verb. This move requires a slight modification of the definition of Relativized Minimality as it is proposed by Rizzi (1990), in the sense that the semantic contents of intervening governors is made more prominent than in Rizzi's original account. More specifically, we would like to add the following condition to the definition of Relativized Minimality in (5): (25) (iv)

Z is morphologically definable in the same terms as X and Y.

This means that if a potential governor Z intervenes between X and Y which is not definable in the same terms as X and Y, it will not block government of Y by X. This modification of Relativized Minimality does not change anything for

10 This raises a problem for an analysis for clitic climbing along the lines of Kayne (1989), since it is not clear how clitics will be able to move over the infinitival anaphoric AGR-S° in order to move to the matrix verb in (i): (i) Lo voglio fare itcl I want to do 'I want to do it' However, it might simply be that Kayne's analysis can be reconciled with an analysis invoking reanalysis for 'clitic climbing' verbs, following Rizzi (1982). See Rosen (1990) for a recent analysis along these lines. An alternative would be to assume with Rochette (1988) that the set of verbs involving clitic climbing select a VP instead of a CP: in that case, there will be no embedded (and controlled) AGR-S° that might function as a potential X° governor for the trace of the climbed clitics in the embedded VP. In any case, the assumption that 'clitic climbing' constructions are bona fide control structures needs to be amended, since otherwise it remains mysterious why clitic climbing is restricted to a lexical class of epistemic verbs.


349

the core cases to be excluded by Relativized Minimality.11 In (6c), which is also excluded by Relativized Minimality applying to a case of X° antecedent government, the intervening modal could clearly shares verbal features with have and its trace, and hence counts as an intervening governor. The approach of further semantic ally relativizing Relativized Minimality is in line with the modification proposed by Baker & Hale (1990). Baker & Hale (1990) argue that a distinction between functional and lexical categories should be built into the definition of Relativized Minimality: only lexical heads block antecedentgovernment by another lexical head, and only functional heads block antecedent-government by another functional head. The modification of Relativized Minimality proposed here and Baker & Hale's (1990) proposal share the intuition that Relativized Minimality should take into account the content of intervening categories. Crucially, the lower, nonimperative tensed AGR-S° does not have this blocking capacity for government in terms of Relativized Minimality. In the analysis developed here, this is because of the fact that tensed AGR-S° is different from both the imperative AGR-C° and the infinitival AGR-S° in that the 'normal' tensed morphology is not definable in terms of the Binding theory. Tensed AGR-S° only acquires its nominal features through Spec - Head Agreement. Since (24) does not apply to tensed AGR-S°, tensed AGR-S° does not count as a potential X° governor: that is, tensed AGR-S° is not 'visible' for a chain relating elements definable in terms of Binding their traces. The analysis developed here claims that the notion 'potential a-governor' within Relativized Minimality crucially involves the distinction between AGR° morphemes definable in terms of the Binding theory and AGR° morphemes which are not so definable. This simply means that the contents of potential intervening governors does play a role in Relativized Minimality. The application of Relativized Minimality is restricted by the fact that the semantic content of an intervening head must be sufficiently similar to the content of elements of the chain it interrupts. A similar observation has been made for 11 This approach has a number of consequences for the analysis Rizzi (1990) offers of Inner Islands. For Rizzi (1990), negation can intervene between a Wh- element in Spec, CP and an intermediate trace in a lower Spec, CP to block antecedent-government. Negation being an A' governor, Relativized Minimality rules out a sentence such as (i): (i) * [CP How didn't you think [CP ti Mary fixed the car ti ] In the approach advocated here, negation would not be able to intervene as an A' governor because it does not share any semantic features with the Wh- chain it is supposed to block. On the basis a number of counterexamples to (i) in French, Rooryck (1992) has shown that negative islands as in (i) should not be explained by Relativized Minimality. Rooryck (1992) argues that the appropriate principles ruling out (i) have to to with operator - variable scope relations.

350

ROORYCK

some exceptions to Rizzi's (1990) account of negative islands in terms of Relativized Minimality (Rooryck 1992). The resulting structure of positive imperatives followed by clitics as in (26a) is then as in (26b), and the structure of Spanish enclitic infinitivals (27 a) is as in (27b): (26) a. Regarde-le 'Watch it/ himcl b. [CP [AGR-C°[[[cl0-V° ti [V° regard]] e T°] AGR-S° ] AGR-C°] [AGR-S-P t°[[[ lei [V°]] T°] AGR-S°] [TP [VP]]]] (27) a. Quiero hacerlo T want to do itcl' b. [CP Quiero [CP C° [AGR-S-P [[[[cl°-V° ti [V° had]] er T°] AGR-S°] [TP t°[[loi [V°]] T°] [VP]]]] At first sight, these structures violate Baker's (1988:73) ban on traces within an X° element, a constraint which he considers a morphological part of the Head Movement Constraint. Baker (1988) states this ban as follows: (28) *[x° ... ti ... ]

(= Baker 1988:73 (76))

The structures in (25-26) clearly do not comply with this constraint. However, the constraint (28) was primarily designed by Baker (1988) to prevent a Z° incorporated to X° to successive cyclically move to a higher Y° as in (29): (29) [ Y ° Z ° ] . . . [ x 0 t ' z ° ] . . . t Z 0 This configuration clearly does not obtain in (26-27). Consequently, we feel justified in weakening Baker's (1988) principle by stating that the configuration (28) is allowed iff all the elements of the chain of the Z° incorporating into the governing X° are dominated by this X°. This is clearly the case in (26-27), where the V° in AGR-C° clearly dominates both the clitic and all its traces. This interpretation of Baker (1988:73) still rules out the relevant structure (29), and is compatible with the exclusion of (29) via the Minimality Condition (Baker 1988:45lfn9): In this footnote, Baker (1988) attributes to Chomsky (p.c.) the idea that (29) may be ruled out by the ECP under an extension of the Minimality Condition, since XP would be a Barrier between t'z° and its antecedent in Y°.


351

Another theoretical problem with the analysis of the enclitic ordering of imperatives in terms of Relativized Minimality has to do with the original definition of Relativized Minimality itself. Rizzi (1990:7) characterizes this principle in hierarchical terms stipulating that an a-governor Z intervening between X and Y must c-command Y and not c-command X. In the case of enclitic imperatives, the intervening AGR-C° would clearly c-command both the clitic in the amalgamated verbal complex in AGR-C° and its trace in AGR-S° (cfr 23c). It could then be objected that Relativized Minimality cannot apply to this structure, since the hierarchical clause of its definition is not fulfilled. However, we would like to argue that the hierarchical relations between the elements amalgamated in an X° by adjunction are of a different nature from those expressed in a full-fledged configuration. For one thing, in order for a clitic to c-command its traces out of an X° complex, it must be accepted in any case that they are somehow on the same hierarchical level as the functional X° elements they are adjoined to together with the verb. Even if AGR-C° ccommands and governs the clitic in (23c), this c- command relation does not have the hierarchical property that was essential for Rizzi (1990) in determining intervention of a potential a-governor hierarchically in terms of c- command. We would like to say that c- command in the strong hierarchical sense does not apply between AGR-C° and the clitic in (23c), since for all other purposes they are supposed to be on the same hierarchical level. Since the X°- complex in AGR-C° does c-command its complex trace and hence the trace of the clitic, Relativized Minimality does apply to (23c).

6. Conclusion Our analysis of enclitic ordering in Romance imperatives and infinitives in terms of Relativized Minimality strongly suggests that amalgamated categories are not an unordered bunch of features, but that the morpheme boundaries within the amalgamated complex are preserved. 12 It shows that a purely syntactic principle such as the ECP applies to morphologically amalgamated categories. The analysis of clitic ordering in Romance imperatives advocated here offers strong evidence for Kayne's analysis of X° amalgamation as involving a general left adjunction process. It is also worthwhile to note that the enclitic ordering in Romance imperatives can be considered a case of reverse excorporation (Roberts 1991): instead of the clitic 'passing through' the V-TAGR complex, here the verb excorporates into C° because of general principles of the grammar which determine that it cannot take its clitics with it. The 12 For another exploitation of the idea that features in amalgamated V-T-AGR complexes are distinctly visible in causatives, see d'Hulst & Rooryck (1989).

352

ROORYCK

analysis presupposes that the grammar makes a distinction between AGR° morphemes that are defined in terms of the Binding theory and AGR° morphemes that are not so defined. The analysis strongly suggests that Relativized Minimality applies to the morphosyntactic complexes of clitics, verbs and affixes, and has to integrate a more precise definition of potential X° governors which takes into account their semantic content. REFERENCES Albertini, Jean. 1972. Précis de grammaire corse. Corté: Editions du CERC. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark & Ken Hale. 1990. "Relativized Minimality and Pronoun Incorporation". Linguistic Inquiry 21.289-297. Bec, Pierre. 1967. La langue occitane. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Belletti, Adriana 1990. Generalized Verb-movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier Bernstein, Judy. 1991. "Nominal Enclitics in Romance", (ms. CUNY Graduate Center) Beukema, Frits & Peter Coopmans. 1989. "A Government-Binding Perspective on the Imperative in English". Journal of Linguistics. 25.417436. Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge: MIT. 1982. "Control and Complementation". Linguistic Inquiry. 13.343-434. Burzio, Luigi. 1989. "On the Morphology of Reflexives and Impersonals". to appear in: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Columbus, Ohio, April 21-23, 1989. Chomsky, Noam. 1989. "Some Notes on the Economy of Derivation and Representation". MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, ed. by Itziar Laka and Anoop Mahajan Clark, Robin. 1985. Boundaries and the Treatment of Control. Ph. D. dissertation. Los Angeles: UCLA. d'Hulst, Yves and Johan Rooryck. 1989. "An ECM Analysis of French Perception and Transitive Movement Verbs". Paper presented at the LSA Winter meeting, 1989, Washington, D.C. (ms. KULAK/ Indiana University) Guillaume, Gustave. 1929. Temps et verbe. Paris: Masson.


353

Haiman, John. 1988. "Rhaeto-Romance". The Romance Languages, ed. by Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent, 351-390. New York: Oxford University Press. Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By:Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. "Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, Doubled NPs and Extraction". The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. ed. by Hagit Borer, 15-42. New York: Academic Press. Jones, Michael. 1988. "Sardinian". The Romance Languages, ed. by Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent, 314-350. New York: Oxford University Press. Joseph, Brian. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kayne, Richard. 1983. "Chains, Categories External to S, and French Complex Inversion". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1:107-139. . 1989. "Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing". The Null Subject Parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir, 239-261. Dordrecht: Kluwer. . 1991a. "Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO". Linguistic Inquiry 22.647-686. . 1991b. "Italian Negative Infinitival Imperatives and Clitic Climbing". (ms. CUNY Graduate Center) Newmark, Leonard, Philip Hubbard & Peter Prifti. 1982. Standard Albanian. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pica, Pierre. 1987. "On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle". Proceedings of NELS 17. ed. by Joyce McDonough & Bernadette Plunkett, 483-500. Amherst: GLSA. . 1991. "On the Relationship between Binding and Antecedentgovernment: The Case of Long-distance Reflexives". To appear in Issues on Long-distance Anaphora, ed. by Jan Koster & Eric Reuland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP". Linguistic Inquiry 20.365-424. Remacle, Louis. 1952. Syntaxe du parler wallon de la Gleize, Tome 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Rézean, Pierre. 1976. Un patois de Vendée, le parler rural de Vouvant. Paris: Klincksieck. Rivero, María-Luisa. 1988. "The Structure of IP and V-movement in the Languages of the Balkans", (ms. University of Ottawa) Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

354

ROORYCK

. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Roberts, Ian. 1991. "Excorporation and Minimality". Linguistic Inquiry 22.209-218. Rochette, Anne. 1988. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Romance Sentential Complementation. Ph. D. dissertation, Cambridge: MIT. Rooryck, Johan. 1991. Out of Control. Deriving the Reference of Unexpressed Infinitival Subjects. (book ms. Indiana University) . 1992. "Negative and Factive Islands Revisited". Journal of Linguistics 28, 343-374. Rohlfs, G. 1977. Le gascon: études de philologie pyrénéenne. Tübingen: Niemeyer - Pau: Marrimpouey Jeune. Rosen, Sarah. 1990. "Restructuring Verbs are Light Verbs". The Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Aaron Halpern, 477-492. Stanford: CLSI. Sauzet, Patrick. 1986. "Les clitiques occitans: analyse métrique de leur variation dialectale". Morphosyntaxe des langues romanes, Actes du XVIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes, Vol 4, 153180. Aix-en Provence: Université de Provence. Stowell, Tim. 1982. "The Tense of Infinitives". Linguistic Inquiry 13.561570. Thompson, Sandra. 1973. "On Subjectless Gerunds in English". Foundations of language 9.374-383. Tranel, Bernard. 1981. Concreteness in Generative Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1994. PRO-legomena. An Investigation into the Distribution and the Referential Properties of the Empty Category PRO. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Van Haaften, Ton. 1982. "Interpretaties van begrepen subjecten". Glot. 5.107122. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. (Ph. D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, IRCS Report n° 91-26).

ON THE NATURE OF SPEC/IP AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR SCOPE ASYMMETRIES IN SPANISH AND ENGLISH* MARIA URIBE-ETXEBARRIA University of Connecticut 1. On Certain ECP Effects in Spanish It is a well known fact that some Romance languages, among them Spanish, differ from English in the behaviour observed with respect to Whextraction. In particular, Spanish contrasts with English in what has been called Superiority and that-trace effects, as illustrated in (1-2): (1)

a. Who bought what? b*What did who buy? c. Who do you say (*that) bought a computer?

(2)

a ¿ Quién compró qué? b. ¿Qué compró quién? c. ¿Quién dices que compró un ordenador?

The differences in (l)-(2) have been accounted for by assuming that in languages like Italian and Spanish the subject can be lexically governed. Rizzi (1982) and Jaeggli (1982), among others, relate this to the possibility of subject inversion available in those Romance languages. Thus, in those languages, the subject would be extracted not from the preverbal position but rather from the postverbal one, which they assume to be a properly governed position.

* I have greatly benefitted from comments and discussion with Jun Abe, Ana Ardid, Ignacio Bosque, Lisa Cheng, Hamida Demirdash, Hiroto Hoshi, Howard Lasnik, Javier Ormazabal, Luis Sáez, Mamoru Saito, and Juan Uriagereka. I would also like to thank the audiences of the XX Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages as well as those of the IX Summer Courses of the University of the Basque Country, and the Linguistics Workshops at UCONN and the University of Deusto. Jun Abe, Hamida Demirdash, Hiroto Hoshi and Javier Ormazabal deserve my deepest gratitude for their help in the preparation of this paper. The usual disclaimers apply. This research has been funded by a sholarship from the Department of Education of the Basque Government.

356

URIBE-ETXEBARRIA

Jaeggli (1985) argues that Spanish also shows Superiority Effects (which he assimilates to the ECP) when the relevant structural conditions are met. Consider the following examples in (3), which involve multiple interrogation and instances of Wh-phrases in situ: (3)

a. ¿ Quién dijiste que compró qué? Who said-you that bought what "Who did you say bought what?" b. ¿Qué dijiste que compró quién? What said-you that bought who "What did you say that who bought?" c. * ¿Qué dijiste que quién compró? What said-you that who bought "What did you say that who bought?" d. ¿Qué dijiste que Mario compró? What said-you that Mario bought "What did you say that Mario bought?" (From Jaeggli 1985)

The example in (3a), where the Wh-phrase in situ is a complement, is unproblematic under standard assumptions. (3b) is one of those typical cases discussed by Jaeggli where the Wh-element in situ is a postverbal subject; according to him, the trace left by the Wh-subject at LF will be properly governed. The interest of this paradigm lies in the contrast, observed by Jaeggli, between (3b) and (3c). Thus, when the subject Wh-phrase is in preverbal position at S-Structure, as in (3c), the sentence is ungrammatical. As Jaeggli notes, the ungrammaticality of (3c) cannot be simply attributed to the failure of Verb Preposing in the embedded clause, since (3d), where the subject Mario is preverbal and Verb Preposing has not applied, is fully grammatical.1 Jaeggli proposes that (3c) is ungrammatical because the trace left at LF by the preverbal subject quién does not satisfy the ECP. 2. Wh-phrase/QP Interactions: Some Puzzling Asymmetries The paradigm in (3) seems to be related to a further set of phenomena that, as far as I know, has not received a satisfactory account in the literature. Consider the following set of examples in (4), which also involve Whextraction out of an embedded sentence and postverbal embedded subjects. 1

Jaeggli follows Torrego (1984) in assuming that S ' but not S counts as a bounding node in Spanish with respect to the Subjacency Condition.

SPEC/IP AND SCOPE ASYMMETRIES

357

Note that in these cases the embedded subject is not a Wh-phrase, as before, but a quantified NP. (4) a.

¿A quién dices que amaba cada senador t ? Whom say-you that loved each senator "Who do you say that each senator loved?" b. ¿Qué dices que ha comprado todo dios t ? What say-you that has bought everybody "What do you say that everybody bought?"

The sentences in (4) are ambiguous in Spanish, allowing two different readings. According to one possible interpretation, the Wh-phrase has wide scope over the embedded postverbal subject; thus, an appropriate answer for these examples under this interpretation could be: "It is John that each senator loved", and "It is this computer that everybody bought". This construal can be formally represented as in (5), where the embedded quantified subject adjoins to the embedded IP and the Wh-phrase in the main CP has scope over the quantifier. (5)a.

[CP Whomj [IP you say [CP that Qp each senator} [IP loves ti

tj]]]] [For wh(x)/{x:person}](you say that [for each(y)/{y:senator}](y loved x)) b. [CP Whatj [IP you say [CP that [IP everybodyi [IP bought ti tj]]]]] [For wh(x)/{x:thing}](you say that [for every(y)/{y:person}](y bought x)) Under the second possible interpretation, represented in (6), the embedded subject cada senador "each senator", or the colloquial todo dios "everybody", can take wide scope over the Wh-phrase:2 (6)a.

[CP Whoj [IP each senatori [IP you say [CP that [IP loved ti tj]]]]] [For wh(x)/{x:person}][For each(y)/{y:senator}](you say that (y loved x)) b. [CP Whatj []p everybody! [IP you say [CP that [IP bought ti tj]]]]] [For wh(x)/{x:thing}][For every(y)/{y:person}](you say that (y bought x))

2

See May (1985) and L&S (1992) for relevant discussion on the logical form of cases involving interaction of QP and Wh-phrases.

358

URIBE-ETXEBARRIA

Under this interpretation, pair readings can be obtained; in this way, a possible answer to these questions would be: "Senator Smith loved Gary Cooper, Senator Brown loved Ava Gardner,...", or "Mary bought a computer, Susan bought a book...". Note that in (6) the quantified embedded subject appears adjoined to the matrix IP, and not to the embedded one as it was under the interpretation represented in (5). However, if we modify the examples in (4) so that the embedded quantified subject appears preverbally, as in (7), the examples, though grammatical, are no longer ambiguous. That is, one of the readings available for the examples in (4) disappears and the only available interpretation is that in which the Whphrase has necessarily wide scope over the quantified subject, as previously represented in (5).3 (7)

a. ¿ A quién dices que cada senador amaba? Whom say-you that each senator loved b. ¿Qué dices que todo dios ha comprado? What say-you that everybody bought

What this suggests is that the quantified subject only can raise to adjoin to the highermost IP when it is extracted from the postverbal position, but that this movement is ruled out when it is extracted from SPEC/IP; in this case the subject only has scope over the embedded IP. This situation is reminiscent of the one observed and discussed by Jaeggli with respect to the data in (3). Thus, keeping in mind Jaeggli's account, the first analysis that comes to mind is that the wide scope of the preverbal subject in (7) is impossible because movement from SPEC/IP at LF results in an ECP violation, as proposed by Jaeggli to account for the ungrammaticalty of (3c). However, there exist some cases that cast some doubts on the appropriateness of this account. The first case is related to the possible construals of embedded quantified adjuncts; consider the example in (8): (8) ¿Qué dices que los amigos han visto en cada ciudad? What say-you that the friends have seen in each city? "What do you say that the friends saw in each city?" This example is parallel to those in (7) in the sense that it involves the extraction of the embedded Wh-object qué "what", which moves at S-Structure to the main clause, and a quantified phrase in the embedded clause. Observe, The contrast also holds for subjects of unaccusative verbs.


359

however, that in this case the quantifier is an adjunct, en cada ciudad "in each city". Compare now the possible interpretations of (7), where the quantified subject is in preverbal position, with those of (8). While the examples in (7) are not ambiguous and only allow the reading in (5), where the quantifier is adjoined to the embedded IP, (8), on the contrary, is ambiguous. In particular, in addition to (9a), this example allows an interpretation associated with pair readings, which indicates that the adjunct quantifier can take scope in the matrix IP, as represented in (9b). (9)

a. [CPWHj[IP... [CP [IP QAdji [IP tj ti ]]]]] b. [CPWHj[IP QAdji [IP...[CP [IP tj ti]]]]]

What is crucial in the example in (8) is that, as in the case of movement of the subject from preverbal position in (7), the trace left by the moved quantified adjunct en cada ciudad when it moves at LF has to be antecedent-governed. It seems logical to expect that since antecedent government does not hold in the case of preverbal quantified subjects when they move to the matrix IP at LF in the examples in (7), it will not hold for the adjunct case in (8) either. However, as we have just seen, (8) allows a reading in which en cada ciudad takes scope in the matrix sentence too; therefore, we are led to the conclusion that there is a correct derivation for that movement and that the traces left by the adjunct are properly governed. Since a subjacency violation in the case of adjuncts yields an ECP violation (antecedent government being necessary), each element of the adjunct chain must be subjacent to the next one, and all the traces must be properly governed. From this we can conclude that the trace left by the adjunct when it adjoins to the embedded IP on its way up is also licensed and, further, that this step is in turn used to govern the immediately anterior trace, as roughly represented in (10a).4 (10) a. Adjunct-QP at LF: [CP [IP [IP [CP [IP QADJUNCT [IP tQAdjnct]]]]] Î ... I Î I 1st step

4

Here I disregard the possibility of preposition stranding at LF on the basis of UribeEtxebarria (1990); see also Sáez (1990) for independent arguments supporting this position.

360

URIBE-ETXEBARRIA

b. Preverbal subject QP at LF: [CP[IP [IP [CP[IPQSUBJECT [IP tQSubj V...]]]]

î_..._x_..._| T

| 1st step

But, then, a question arises as to what rules out the derivation in which the quantified preverbal subject has matrix scope too. Observe that, as represented in (10b), the first step in the derivation of the subject includes adjunction to the embedded IP, exactly the same as in the case of the adjunct chain represented in (10a). From here on, the chain created by the movement of the subject is exactly on a par with that created by the movement of the adjunct. But if adjunction to the embedded IP serves to govern the previous trace in the adjunct chain in (10a), it remains mysterious what prevents government of the initial trace by the same mechanism in the subject chain in (10b). The difficulty of an ECP account for the asymmetries in scope of preverbal and postverbal subjects comes also from the consideration of an English/Spanish difference in the scopal behaviour of preverbal subjects. May (1985) presents the example in (11a), which is in all respects structurally identical to the ones with preverbal quantified embedded subjects in (7), but that crucially differs from the Spanish cases in that it is ambiguous and allows the reading where the preverbal subject everyone takes scope in the matrix clause; he assigns this construal the representation in (1 lb). (11) a. Who do you think everyone saw at the rally ? b. [s' Who2 [S everyone3 [s you think [S' [S e3 saw e2 at the rally]]]]] Given that the Spanish examples in (7) and the English one in (11) are identical and that both will involve the same S-Structure and LF structure, it is unclear what prevents the wide scope reading for the subject in Spanish and allows it in English if the relevant fact involved is an ECP violation. I have just claimed that the examples in (7) and (8) on the one hand, and (7) and (11) on the other are similar in all relevant respects. However, when we look at the examples in more detail we observe that there is an important difference with respect to the elements compared in each pair under consideration. To begin with, in contrast with adjuncts, the subject has the possibility of remaining in a governed position at S-Structure in Spanish. Within the VPInternal Subject Hypothesis (Kuroda (1986), Fukui & Speas (1986), etc.), which I will adopt here without further discussion, this position has been


361

proposed to correspond to the VP-internal position where the subject is basegenerated. On the other hand, when we compare the relevant elements involved in the examples in (7) and (11), that is, preverbal subjects in Spanish and English respectively, the same differences arise again, since the subject can only appear in one position at S-Structure in English (namely, in SPEC/IP), and lacks the double placement possibility of its Spanish counterpart. Let me capitalize on this difference and propose that the asymmetries under analysis follow from a difference in the Case licensing properties of each language, which, ultimately, are related to a difference in the nature of Spec/IP. 3. On the Nature of SPEC/IP and its Relevance for Quantification It has been generally assumed that the SPEC/IP position is an A-position, since it can be an A-binder as well as the potential recipient of a 0-role (Chomsky 1981). However, if the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis is correct and the subject is assigned its 0-role within VP, it is difficult to maintain that SPEC/IP is an A-position. This conflict could be solved if the A/A' distinction is redefined in terms of Visibility, 0-role assignment being then linked to Case assignment. If so, the object will be visible in its D-Structure position where it is assigned Accusative Case. The subject, in turn, will only be visible once Nominative Case has been assigned to it and needs therefore to raise to SPEC/IP, where it receives Case through SPEC-head agreement with INFL. This would allow us to redefine an A-position so as to include that position in which an NP becomes visible with respect to its 9-role.5 But even if we make the distinction dependent on Case, we still do not guarantee that SPEC/IP is an A-position in all languages; in languages that allow some alternative mechanisms other than the SPEC/head agreement to Case-mark the subject, SPEC/IP could behave as an A'-position. Let us assume that this is correct and explore its consequences in the light of the phenomena under analysis. Under standard assumptions, subjects in English can only be Case marked Nominative in SPEC/IP; following the line of reasoning sketched above, SPEC/IP will be an A-position in English. In Spanish, however, the subject does not need to move to SPEC/IP and can remain in its base-generated position within VP (see fn. (7)). We can then assume that the subject can receive Case and comply with the Visibility Condition in its base-generated position (Koopman & Sportiche 1990), which suggests that SPEC/IP will behave as an A'-position in Spanish. If this move is correct, the prediction is that both languages should display some asymmetries in this respect. Let me 5

See, among others, Deprez (1989) and Mahajan (1990), for relevant discussion.

362

URIBE-ETXEBARRIA

suggest that, in effect, this is so and that it is precisely the asymmetrical behaviour that arises from the different properties of SPEC/IP in the two languages that accounts for the asymmetries and differences in scope possibilities examined so far. If SPEC/IP is an A'-position in Spanish, movement to this position will count as relevant for those elements that need to move for scope reasons; that is, SPEC/IP in Spanish will be a position from which scope can be taken, while it will not in English. Suppose further that, as largely argued for in the literature and summarized in (12), once an element takes scope at S-Structure it cannot move further at LF (Aoun, Hornstein & Sportiche 1981; Lasnik & Saito 1984, 1992; Saito 1989). (12) S-Structure Scope Constraint (descriptive generalization): Once an element moves to take scope at S-Structure, it cannot move further at LF. In the case of English, a quantified subject NP will have to move at LF even if it has already moved to SPEC/IP at S-Structure, since it has to take scope. In Spanish, however, movement at LF will be possible only when the subject has not moved to SPEC/IP at S-Structure since otherwise it would violate the constraint in (12). Keeping this in mind, let us turn back to the conflicting cases under analysis, repeated below for convenience. Consider first the ambiguous examples in (4), which involve postverbal quantified embedded subjects: (4)

a. ¿A quiéni dices que amabav [VPp cada senador tv ti] ? b. ¿Quéi dices que ha compradov [VP todo dios rv ti] ?

In these sentences the subject has not moved out from VP to SPEC/IP, this being the reason why it appears postverbally;6 therefore when it moves at LF it can take scope in the matrix clause, this fact accounting for the ambiguity of scope between the Wh-phrase and the quantifier. In any case, it moves from an A-position and, as far as the derivation is correct, both possibilities are available. Consider now example (8):

6

Here I am assuming that the Verb Preposing Rule proposed by Torrego (1984) does not necessarily take place in clauses where SPEC/CP is not directly occupied by a Wh-phrase, but rather by a trace. The VSO order in those cases follows now from the fact that the subject does not have to move from SPEC/VP to SPEC/IP, and appears following the inflected verb in INFL; see Uribe-Etxebarria (1990).

SPEC/EP AND SCOPE ASYMMETRIES

363

(8) ¿Qué dices que los amigos han visto en cada ciudad? "What do you say that the friends have seen in each city?" As in the case of the postverbal subject the quantified adjunct is in its basegenerated position; consequently, it will have to move at LF in order to create a variable. Therefore, insofar as the movement of the adjunct quantifier independently obeys all the necessary requirements (and, in particular, the ECP), this element can raise and get scope over the Wh-phrase.7 Let us consider now the English example in (11), where the preverbal quantified subject can take wide scope, while comparing it with its Spanish counterpart in (7), which is structurally identical but lacks the wide scope reading of the preverbal QP, as represented in (13): (11) a. Who do you think [ everyone [I saw at the rally]] ? b. [CP Who2 [IP everyone3 [IP you think [CP [IP e3 saw e2 at the rally]]]]] (7) ¿A quién dices que cada senador amaba? (13) [CP Whoj []p each senatori [IP you say [CP that [IP ti loved tj ]]]]] Î ... X ... I As mentioned previously, there is no obvious way to rule the English derivation in (11b) in while ruling the Spanish one in (13) out, since both are identical in all relevant respects. The only way to find a difference between both cases is if, as proposed, the movement of the subject to SPEC/IP in Spanish counts as a valid movement for the quantifier in terms of scope, because of the A'-nature of that position, whereas the English case differs in that respect. If this is correct, the absence of the wide scope reading in (7) follows from the fact that the subject has already moved, in the relevant sense, to an A'-position at SStructure and cannot therefore move again at LF. Thus, the Spanish preverbal subject can only take the scope that corresponds to the movement it realized at S-Structure, as represented in (14). (14) [CP Whomj [IP you say [CP that [IP each senatori [I loved [VPti tj ]]]]]]

See Uribe-Etxebarria (1990) for a detailed discussion of this example.

364

URIBE-ETXEBARRIA

In the English case in (11), on the other hand, the movement of everyone to SPEC/IP counts as an A-movement, and the quantifier is free to move (in fact, it has to move) to an A'-position at LF to take scope. If this approach is correct, we are now in a position to reinterpret Jaeggli's data and explain both, the restrictions on Wh-subjects and quantified subjects, in a unified way. Recall that the crucial case in Jaeggli's paradigm was (3c) since, following him, it demonstrates that Spanish shows Superiority effects too. Under the analysis developed here the Wh-subject has moved from its base-generated position to SPEC/IP, an A'-position in our terms. (3c')

*¿Quéj dijiste [CP que [IP quiéni comprov [yp ti rv tj ]]]? What you-said that who bought

However, contrary to the cases involving preverbal quantified subjects in (7), there is a further requirement to be met in this case by the subject: in particular, being a Wh- phrase it has to be in a [+Wh] COMP at LF. Since the Wh-phrase has already moved in the syntax to an A'-position in (3c), it can not move further at LF; therefore, the sentence is ruled out not because the trace left at LF by the preverbal Wh-phrase violates the ECP, since in fact it will not move, but rather because it violates the [+WH] requirement imposed on Whphrases. (Recall that, alternatively, if it moved, it would violate the requirement on S-Structure scope in (12)). Let us briefly mention some extensions of our hypothesis. Consider first the examples (15) and (16), discussed in detail in Lasnik & Saito (1992). (15) a. * Who2 do you think that t2 left b. ? Who1 t1 thinks that who2 left? (16) a. *Who2 do you wonder whether t2 left? b. ? Who t\ wonders whether who2 left? Under the hypothesis that the nature of the SPEC/IP position differs in English and Spanish, the contrast in the possibility of LF-movement of preverbal Whsubjects in the two languages can be accomodated without any further assumption. Let us finally consider the paradigms in (17-18). The ungrammaticality of (17d) is straightfordwardly explained, since the topicalized Wh-phrase cannot move to the higher interrogative COMP at LF, under the assumption that topicalization A'-moves an element and adjoins it to IP. Suppose, further, that the negative polarity items in (18) have to move to satisfy their licensing requirements at LF (Linebarger 1980; Lasnik & Uriagereka


365

1988). While the movement originates from a non-scope position and the negative polarity is free to move in (18c), no further movement is possible for its counterpart in (18d), since it has already moved to an A'-position at SStructure. (17) a. Who thinks that I like John b. Who thinks [CP that [IP Johni [IP / like ti ]]]? c. Who thinks that I like who d. * Who thinks [CP that [IP who [IP / like ti ]]] L&U(1988)] (18) a. b.

Someone thinks that Mary solved every problem Someone thinks [CP that [IP every problemi [IP Mary solved ti]]] c. I don't think that [pp Mary solved anv problems] d. *I don't think [CP that [IP any problemsi [pp Mary solved ti ]]] ( L & U 1988) If this is correct, the ungrammaticality of (17d) and (18d) can be put in correlation with the ungrammaticality of (3c) and the lack of wide scope reading of the preverbal quantified subjects in (7).8 Summarizing, English and Spanish differ in the ways in which the subject is assigned Case. In Spanish the subject can be assigned Case in its basegenerated position within VP, where it can remain at S-Structure. In English, on the contrary, the subject has to move to SPEC/IP to get Case and become visible. If, as a consequence of these different Case marking properties, SPEC/IP is an A-position in English and an A'-position in Spanish, we can naturally account for the whole set of asymmetries presented in this paper. If the hypothesis proposed here is correct, a large range of predictions are made in areas other than the ones analyzed today, some of them of great theoretical interest.

REFERENCES Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein & Dominique Sportiche. 1981. "Some aspects of Wide Scope Quantification", Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 69-95. 8

Margarita Suner (p.c.) points out cases involving embedded negative polarity subjects in preverbal position where these elements can take wide scope as potential counterexamples to our hypothesis. The issue deserves a much more detailed treatment than space limitations allow here. The reader is referred to Uribe-Etxebarria (in progress) for related discussion.

366

URIBE-ETXEBARRIA

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Deprez, Viviane. 1989. On the Typology of Syntactic Positions and the Nature of Chains, MIT Ph.D. Dissertation. Fukui, Naoki. & Margaret Speas 1986. "Specifiers and Projections", MITWPL 8. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris . 1985. "On Certain ECP Effects in Spanish", ms. USC. Koopman, Hilda, & Dominique Sportiche 1990. "The Position of Subjects" ms. UCLA. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1986. "Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese", ms.UCSD. Lasnik, Howard, & Mamoru. Saito 1984. "On the Nature of Proper Government", LI 15, 235-291. . 1992. Move-a., Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard, & Juan Uriagereka 1988. A Course in GB Syntax. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Linebarger, Marcia C. 1980. The Grammar of Negative Polarity, MIT Ph. D. Dissertation. Mahajan, Anoop K. 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. MIT Ph. D. Dissertation. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press,. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax,., Dordrecht: Foris. Sáez, Luis. 1990. "Comparison and Coordination", ms. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid & MIT. Saito, Mamoru. 1989. "Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A'-Movement", in M. Baltin & A. Kroch (eds.): Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 182-200. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Torrego, Esther. 1984. "On Inversion in Spanish and Some of Its Effects", LI 15, 103-129. Uribe-Etxebarria, Maria. 1990. "On the Structural Positions of the Subject in Spanish, their Nature and their Consequences for Quantification", in J. Lakarra & J. Ortiz de Urbina, (eds.), Issues on Generative Grammar and Basque Linguistics., 447-492. San Sebastian: ASJU. . (in progress). On the typology of negative polarity item licensing. UCONN Ph. D. Dissertation.

THE VERBAL COMPONENT IN ITALIAN COMPOUNDS IRENE VOGEL University of Delaware DONNA JO NAPOLI Swarthmore College 0.

Introduction The only productive compound formation process in Italian involving verbs is that which creates nouns from a verbal form followed by a noun (e.g. lavapiatti "dishwasher", lit. "wash dishes". While the entire compound is a noun, these are exocentric forms since the noun that appears in the compound is not the head; it is an argument of the verb, typically the theme argument that would appear in direct object position.1 There is controversy in the literature on Italian regarding the nature of the verbal element in these compounds, with the two main proposals being that it is (a) a third person singular present indicative form (e.g. Tollemache 1945, Merlo 1949, Varela 1989) and (b) a singular informal positive imperative form (e.g. Meyer-Lubke 1895, Migliorini 1946, Wagner 1946-47, Rohlfs 1969). In this paper, we argue that neither of these options is correct and that the form is an uninflected stem. This analysis not only solves the problem of the identity of the verbal element in the verb+noun compounds under investigation, but also provides insight into the nature of the singular informal imperative itself. 1. Verb + Noun Compounds The problem of determining the nature of the verbal element of verb+noun compounds becomes clear when compounds involving each of the three conjugation classes are compared: (1)

a. conjugation I: b. conjugation II:

lava+piatti "dishwasher" (lavare "to wash") spremi+limoni "lemon juicer"

1 The type of V+N compound studied here is present to varying degrees of productivity throughout the Romance languages. We will therefore freely cite sources which discuss these compounds for any of the languages since their comments hold of Italian as well as of the other Romance language(s).

368

VOGEL & NAPOLI

c. conjugation

III:

(spremere "to squeeze") copri+letto "bedspread" (coprire "to cover")

The meaning of the compounds in question typically involves the notion of a person or object that performs an action (indicated by the verb) on a theme (indicated by the noun). This has led to the proposal that the compounds are derived from phrases (Giurescu 1965, Contreras 1985, Di Sciullo & Williams 1987, Nuñez-Cedeho 1989). In some of these analyses, the (external) head of the compound is a generic noun such as una persona "a person", una macchina "a machine", un oggetto "an object", that is the subject of the verb. It follows from such an analysis that the verb is a third person singular present indicative form, agreeing with the (unstated) generic subject. An advantage of this approach is that it predicts the verb+noun, as opposed to noun+verb, order of the words in the compounds, since the former is the unmarked order of verbs and direct objects in Italian phrases (Scalise 1983:54).2 The major problem with such an account is that the verbal form that appears in the compounds coincides with the appropriate third person form only for the first conjugation. For the other two conjugations, the expected forms end in -e, not the -i that appears in the compounds. Some sort of readjustment rule would therefore be necessary to arrive at the correct forms for the second and third conjugation verbs. Also, there is no evidence that the compounds have an NP subject at any point in their derivation and the verbal form in the compounds does not have the sense of present time. The second account of the nature of the verb form in the noun+verb compounds, that it is a singular informal positive imperative, is more adequate in accounting for the phonological shape of the actual surface form. The form that appears in the compounds for each of the three conjugations coincides with 2 Some have argued that these are endocentric compounds, where the left element is a deverbal N that serves as head to the compound (Coseriu 1977, Clements 1990, Varela 1989, Zuffi 1981). This analysis is consistent with the claim that in compounds the nonhead satisfies a theta-role of the head (Di Sciullo & Williams 1987). Still there are examples of other compounds that, by this standard, must be judged exocentric (e.g. saliscendi "dumbwaiter", dormiveglia "state between sleep and being awake"). It is also consistent with the claim that the head of a compound must be on the left in Romance because the Head-Subject parameter (a parameter of interpretation) is rightward (Giorgi & Longobardi 1991). Again, however, Italian presents problems since there are other compounds that have the order N+V and still have the same sort of sense as our V+N compounds (e.g. tuttofare "handyman" = "all-do", sanguisuga "leech" = "blood-suck"). Thus, neither of these claims can be taken as inviolable in Italian. Finally, none of the sources that claim the N+V compounds are headed give independent evidence that the left element is a bare verb stem. We thus take these compounds to be exocentric.

THE VERBAL COMPONENT IN ITALIAN COMPOUNDS

369

the relevant imperative forms. Semantically, however, there is no motivation for claiming that the compounds involve an imperative, and in certain cases such an interpretation would be counterintuitive. For example, grattacielo "sky scraper" contains the verb grattar e "to scrape", but the compound referring to a type of building does not entail, or even suggest, an imperative such as "scrape the sky!" Scalise (1983:283) also points out that the same vowels that appear at the ends of the verbs in compounds appear preceding certain derivational suffixes and it is clear that in these cases the imperative is not an appropriate base form (e.g. lavatore "washer", spremitura "(the) squeezing"). More generally, both approaches would involve an ordering problem since they require that there be inflectional material on the verbal component, and hence internal to the compounds. Such a position would violate the ordering proposed in a model of Italian morphology in which the lexicon consists of three (or four) levels, the last of which is always taken to be inflection (Scalise 1983, 1984). This model predicts that inflection should not occur within a compound. Although it has subsequently been argued that there is no motivation for such lexical levels in the lexicon of Italian (Vogel 1991), if we accept the current view that inflection is a syntactic rather than a lexical operation (Pollock 1989, Belletti 1990 among others), we would also predict that compounding should not involve internal manifestations of inflection.3 Given the problems with both analyses considered in this section, we will argue for a different solution in section 3, followed by a discussion in the next section of an experiment aimed at gaining information about native speakers' intuitions about verb+noun compounds. 2. The Verb Stem Italian infinitives are traditionally analyzed as consisting of a root followed by the infinitive suffix which in turn is analyzed as consisting of a vowel indicating the conjugation class of the verb or its theme vowel (TV) and the ending -re, as illustrated in (2). (2)

Root Conjugation I: lav Conjugation II: sprem Conjugation HI: copr

Theme Vowel a e i

lavare "to wash" spremere "to squeeze" coprire "to cover"

The combination of the root and the theme vowel is often referred to as the stem of the verb, and it is precisely this stem that we propose is the form of the 3

There are occasional exceptions not involving verbs, however, such as capoßtazionel capistazione "station master/station masters".

370

VOGEL & NAPOLI

verb that appears in the verb+noun compounds. Scalise (1983) adopts a similar position, pointing out that some sort of phonological readjustment rule is needed to account for the fact that in the second conjugation verbs we find an -i instead of the theme vowel -e. Such a rule, which we will refer to as Vowel Raising, can be formulated as in (3). It applies to the nonlow theme vowels, raising -e to -i, and operating vacuously on -i. VR applies only to those theme vowels that are not followed by any inflectional material. This latter restriction is captured in the rule below by the requirement that if anything follows the TV (i.e. "Y") the result must still be a stem, as opposed to a full (inflected) lexical item.4 (3)

Vowel Raising r+syll] → [+high] / X ]v root — ]stem Y]stem

[-low] It should be noted that "Y" in (3) can be either null, as in the case of the verbal component of the verb+noun compounds under consideration here, or a derivational affix (e.g. leggere/leggibile "to read/readable" punire/punibile "to punish/punishable"). Taking the stem as the verbal component of compounds has several advantages. First, it does not require inflection to occur internal to a compound. The form that appears is an abstract, purely morphological entity (Aronoff 1992) used in the word formation process in question, and as such it does not itself carry any inflectional markers, nor is it subject to inflection from the syntax. In addition, by taking the stem as the verb form of the compounds, we avoid the semantic incompatibilities observed with both the third person singular present indicative and singular informal imperative forms. Finally, while this analysis cannot itself predict the verb+noun word order, it is compatible with a historical analysis in which these compounds arose from phrasal units. While Latin and early Romance compounds typically exhibited the order noun+verb, consistent with the sentence final position of the verb (Oniga 1988, Klingebiel 1989), as the sentential word order changed in the direction of the verb preceding the direct object, the order of the verb and noun components of compounds changed. This historical observation does not, however, impose a phrasal synchronic analysis on the verb+noun compounds since synchronic and diachronic analyses of a given phenomenon often differ (Lightfoot 1979, Allen 1980:18). 4

This rule is stated informally here since we are concerned with an accurate description of its application rather than issues of the formalism of morphophonological rules.


371

It remains unexplained, however, why imperatives have identical phonological forms to those observed in compounds. We will argue in section 4 that this is not a coincidence, but rather is the consequence of the absence of inflectional markers on the singular informal positive imperative. It has the same phonological form as that of the uninflected stem of the compounds. Before turning to imperatives, however, we will consider several other issues involved in analyzing the stem as the verbal component in verb+noun compounds. A number of second and third conjugation verbs show discrepancies between the root portion of the infinitive and that of other members of the paradigm. Among third conjugation verbs, the most common difference is that many verbs take the so-called -iscaugment in certain forms, not including the infinitive. If the root is identified as the portion of the infinitive before the theme vowel, the stem in such cases would not contain the augment. If it is correct that the stem, with the application of Vowel Raising where necessary, is the verbal component of the compounds in question, we would thus predict that compounds involving third conjugation verbs that take the augment should not show this augment in the compound. The only relevant case we found is pulisciscarpe "door mat" (lit. "clean shoes"), where the augment is, in fact, present. It should be noted that the augment is present also in both the third person singular present indicative and singular informal imperative forms. We propose that the augment is actually part of the stem of the relevant third conjugation verbs. It has been observed (Napoli & Vogel 1990, di Fabio 1990) that the presence of the augment is sensitive to stress and thus can be accounted for by a fairly general morphophonological rule. Specifically, -isc- appears in those verb forms where stress would otherwise fall on the root; where stress falls to the right of the root, the augment is absent, as seen in (4). (4)

pulisco pulisci pulisce puliscono pulisca

"I clean" "you clean" "he cleans" "they clean" "(that) he clean"

puliámo pulíte pulivo pulîrono pulirió

"we clean" "you (pl) clean" "I was cleaning" "they cleaned" "I will clean"

If the augment is inserted to avoid stress on the root (di Fabio 1990), this requires that the verbs that exhibit the augment be marked in some way to specify that they have this special behavior. If, however, the augment is part of the stem (Napoli & Vogel 1990), it is clear from this representation which verbs take the augment and which do not. For those that do, all that is needed, then, is a rule that deletes the augment when stress falls to its right. This automatically accounts for why the infinitive itself does not have the augment since stress is to the right of the root here, too. Furthermore, since it is our position that the stem

372

VOGEL & NAPOLI

is the appropriate verbal form in compounds, it follows that the augment should appear in compounds of third conjugation verbs that exhibit it elsewhere. A number of second and third conjugation verbs also exhibit differences between the root found in the infinitive and corresponding portion of the third person singular present indicative and singular informal imperative forms. In certain cases, the latter differ from each other as well. For example, in verbs like venire "to come", the relevant third person and imperative forms contain a diphthong (i.e. viene "he comes", vieni "come"), the so-called dittongo mobile. Volere "to want" has a diphthong in the third person form (i.e. vuole "he wants"), but a different consonant, the palatal lateral represented as gl, in the imperative (i.e. voglia "want!"). Such verbs would be particularly useful in evaluating the proposal that the verb form that appears in compounds is the stem consisting of the root and theme vowel. However, they tend not to be found in existing compounds. In order to see what forms would be used if such compounds did exist, we conducted an experiment in which subjects were asked to construct various verb+noun compounds, including ones with such verbs with variation in their roots. 3. Novel verb+noun compounds Given the general productivity of verb+noun compounds, we expected that native speakers would be able to create new compounds from a verb and a nominal that could be its object. Thus, in order to gain further insight into the nature of the verbal component of these compounds, we had eighteen native speakers living in the Veneto region construct a series of novel compounds. One subject refused to respond to a majority of the stimulus items (described below) and another subject failed to understand the task. These subjects were dropped from the analysis, for a total of sixteen subjects. The subjects were given thirty-two stimuli, randomized differently for each person. The stimuli consisted of a question asking what the subject would call "a person or object that always does V to N", as illustrated in (5), where the verb and noun of interest are capitalized. (5)

a. Come si chiama un oggetto che si usa per LAVARE il RISO? "What is an object used to WASH RICE called?" (typical response: un(a) lavariso ) b. Come si chiama un oggetto che si usa per PORTARE le LAMPADINE? "What is an object used to CARRY LIGHT BULBS called?" (typical response: un(a) portalampadine )


373

The stimulus questions were constructed with the verb in question in the infinitive in order not to bias the selection of the form used in the compound. In (6), the percentages are given for those responses that conform to the hypothesis that the relevant verb form for compounds is a stem consisting of the root and theme vowel, with the application of Vowel Raising for second conjugation verbs. These results exclude the verbs with major irregularities involving third person singular present indicative and singular informal imperatives; these are discussed separately. Conjugation II is divided into two categories depending on whether the stress of the infinitive falls on the root (IIa), or on the theme vowel, the vowel preceding the -re of the infinitive, (11b). (6)

Conjugation I: Conjugation Eta: Conjugation Conjugation III:

95.83% 94.89% IIb:

83.33% 70.83%

combined: 89.11%

These results show that in the vast majority of cases, the speakers created compounds in which the verb form was the root+theme vowel (with the necessary Vowel Raising), as predicted. Where this was not the case, subjects either refused to provide an answer or gave some other type of response, the most common being a noun+noun compound where the second noun was deverbal, as illustrated in (7). We give here the infinitive and noun of the stimulus, followed by a sample noun+noun response.5 (7)

mangiarelfragole godere/pace scrivere/lettere

"eat/strawberries": fragola mangiante "enjoy/peace": pace godente "write/letters": lettere scrivitrice

Of more interest are the second conjugation verbs that involve an alternation between forms with and without a diphthong. In both cases of this type, the subjects used the form with the diphthong in the compound, as shown in (8). (8)

tenerelnastri contenerelcottone

"hold/tapes": tieninastri "contain/cotton": contienicottone

It would appear in these cases that the verb form is not the stem as proposed, although of the other options considered above, the only one that would give the correct surface form is the imperative. Since this was ruled out earlier, another solution must be sought here. One possibility is that the stem in Note that most responses of this type were not grammatical possibilities for Italian.

374

VOGEL & NAPOLI

the verbs in question contains a diphthong, along the lines of the -iscaugment, and that this diphthong is reduced to a simple vowel under the appropriate circumstances, typically when there is no stress on the relevant syllable. This would account for why the diphthong remains in the forms in the compounds (i.e. the syllable is stressed) and why it is absent in the infinitive (i.e. the syllable is unstressed). There are other deviations in the paradigms for these verbs, and other verbs, but these will have to be treated more idiosyncratically as needed. It seems, then, that we find confirmation of our proposal in the behavior of second conjugation verbs when they are used to form novel compounds. Only three third conjugation verbs were tested, all of which exhibit the -iscaugment. While 70% of the responses contained the stem with the augment as proposed above, eleven of the fourteen responses that did not have this form had a form consisting of the root without the augment followed by the theme vowel. In several cases, the subjects first gave a response without the augment and then corrected it to include the augment. What does this mean about the verb form in these compounds? It cannot be either of the other options mentioned above since both the third person and the imperative forms contain the augment. At first glance, it might appear to support an analysis of the augment according to which the augment is inserted as needed but is not part of the basic verb form (di Fabio 1990). According to our proposal, where the augment is part of the stem, it is predicted that the augment should show up in the compounds. In fact, neither di Fabio's proposal nor ours accounts for these forms, since in both cases it is predicted that the augment should appear in the compounds to prevent stress from appearing on the root of the verb. Since almost 30% of the responses do not contain the augment, however, we do not attribute this finding to errors or difficulty with the task. We suggest that those speakers who do not use the augment are enforcing the rule regarding the presence of the augment more strictly than those who do use it. Recall that on our analysis the augment is deleted when the main stress of a word falls to the right of the root. In the case of compounds, there are two roots, and each has some degree of stress. The primary stress of the entire compound, however, is on the second member, so in some sense it is to the right of the root of the verb. Now, since the main stress is not on the verbal root, it is no longer necessary for the augment to be present. Thus, it appears that both solutions are consistent with our analysis where (a) the stem (i.e. root+theme vowel) is the verbal form used in compounding and (b) for those verbs taking the -iscaugment, the augment is part of the stem. The difference lies only in the degree of stress needed to keep the augment: primary stress of


375

the individual members of the compound or primary stress of the entire compound. Six verbs with major irregularities in their paradigms were also examined: dire "to say", dare "to give", volere "to want", avere "to have", sapere "to know", here "to drink". What these verbs have in common is that neither their third person singular nor their singular informal imperative is phonologically related in the usual way to the infinitive. Also, in the case of the three verbs consisting of only two syllables, if the -re suffix and the vowel preceding it are removed there is only a consonant left—a phonologically deficient root (and in the case of dare and dire, an unfortunate conflation). Thus, there is no way to form the type of stem we are claiming is the form of the verb used in verb+noun compounds. The results with these verbs are precisely what might be expected in such a situation: a relatively large number of refusals to provide responses as well as idiosyncratic responses involving two nouns (as in (7) above) and several responses involving full infinitives. While the most popular form seemed to be something like the third person singular, in many cases this could not be distinguished from other members of the verbal paradigms. Since there is no reason to believe these are actually inflected forms, what might be determining the choice of a form homophonous to the third person singular form is the fact that this is in some sense the least marked form. The only verb in this category worthy of individual consideration is here. Although the infinitive form does not contain a v, almost all the members of the paradigm (except the future and conditional, forms arguably related to the infinitive) do, as if the root were bev-. What we propose is that the stem is, in fact, bev- plus the theme vowel -e. Thus, instead of the majority of the paradigm appearing irregular for having the v, the forms that are seen as irregular are those without it, including the infinitive. Given this analysis, bere behaves further like a regular second conjugation verb with respect to verb+noun compounds. In sum, the results of our investigation into the formation of novel verb+noun compounds confirms our proposal that the form of the verb used in these compounds is the stem consisting of the root plus theme vowel. In several cases, the experiment revealed more subtle patterns than are observed in presently existing compounds. For example, this led us to propose a revision of the representation of the stem of verbs with diphthongs that alternate with simple vowels (i.e. the so-called dittonghi mobili) and to distinguish two degrees of stress in relation to the presence or absence of the -iscaugment. The Vowel Raising rule proposed in the previous section was also found to hold consistently for the novel compounds.

376

VOGEL & NAPOLI

4. Implications for the imperative We have argued that the verbal form in verb+noun compounds is a stem. Since the form used for the singular informal positive imperative is phonologic ally identical, we propose that it, too, is a bare verbal stem. While we have arrived at this position on the basis of phonological considerations, it is supported by independent syntactic evidence. Three different formal imperatives have been identified in the traditional literature on Italian, although their sense is hortative.6 For the verb parlare "to speak" these are parli "(you sg) do speak", parlino "(you pl) do speak", parliamo "let's speak". These forms all correspond to present subjunctive forms and we consider them to be hortatives rather than true imperatives. Furthermore, unlike the imperatives discussed below, they consistently take proclitics and show no syntactic or morphological behavior that would identify them as true imperatives. Since they also bear no special relationship to the verb+noun compounds we are concerned with, we will not consider them further here. In addition to the formal imperatives, three informal imperatives have been identified in the tradtitional literature on Italian. One is the first personal plural and has the same form as formal imperative seen above (e.g. parliamo "let's speak"). Another is the second person plural (e.g. parlate "(you pl) do speak"). Both of these forms remain the same whether or not they fall within the scope of the negative non "not" (e.g. non parliamo "let's not speak", non parlate "don't (you pl) speak"). They are also both phonologically identical to the corresponding present indicative forms for all verbs. Rivero (1988), in a study of Balkan verbs, and Kayne (1991), among others, argue that this phonological identity is evidence that the imperative paradigm is suppletive and that the indicative is being used in place of the missing imperative forms. This is the position we will adopt here as well, although it does not directly affect the rest of our analysis. The remaining informal imperative, and the one of concern here, is the second person singular. This imperative has two forms: (a) the form we identified above in relation to the verb+noun compounds as the verbal stem and (b) a form that is phonologically identical to the infinitive. These forms are used in positive and negative imperatives, respectively. They are illustrated below for each conjugation. (9)

CI:

Parla! Nonparlare

"Do speak" "Don't speak"

6 We represent the hortative sense in the English translations of the second person singular and plural forms with ''do".


CII: CIII:

Spingi Non spingere Finisci Non finire!

377

"Do push" "Don't push" "Do finish" ''Don't finish''

An immediate question is why the positive and negative second person informal imperatives have different forms. According to Kayne (1991), the negative form is not actually an imperative. Instead, it is a regular infinitive that follows a phonetically null modal in the imperative form. The latter is presumably identical to the positive imperative form of the modal, a point we cannot test, since both modal forms would be phonetically null. In support of his analysis Kayne observes that both proclitics and enclitics can appear with these negative imperatives: (10) a. Non gliparlare b. Non parlargli!

"Don't speak to him" "Don't speak to him"

Normally in Italian tensed verb forms take proclitics and all other verb forms take enclitics (including the unconjugated form ecco as in eccolo "here it is"). Thus with the infinitive we expect only enclitics, not the structure with the proclitic in (10a). When a modal is followed by an infinitive in Italian, however, if the infinitive has a clitic argument, this argument may appear either encliticized to the infinitive or procliticized to the modal as a result of Clitic Climbing. If the negative imperative has a phonetically null modal, we can account for the proclitic possibility by claiming that the clitic has climbed onto the null modal, resulting in a structure in which the clitic is in proclitic position with respect to the infinitive. This would be the result regardless of whether the clitic in question was proclitic or enclitic to the modal as in (11). The former is the expected case, while the latter has been added only to cover all imaginable situations. (11) a. Non gli [null modal] parlare! b. Non [null modal] gli parlare! Zanuttini (1991) takes a different position, arguing that the second person informal positive imperative, the form we are claiming is a bare stem, is the only true imperative form. All others, including the second person informal negative imperative, are substitutions into a suppletive paradigm, where the "surrogate" forms are really subjunctives (for the formal imperatives), indicatives (for the informal plural imperatives) or infinitives (for the second person singular negative informal imperative) (cf. especially p. 73). Zanuttini

378

VOGEL & NAPOLI

then claims that all of the surrogate forms are attached (after Head Movement) under a Tense Phrase node in the verbal hierarchy, where subjunctives and imperatives are marked [+tense] and infinitives [-tense]. The one true imperative, on the other hand, is not generated under a TP node. Thus, it is marked neither plus nor minus tense; it simply lacks a tense feature, precisely what is predicted if it is a bare verbal stem, as we are proposing. Zanuttini argues further that the negative head non selects a TP as its complement, so non can never be cliticized to true imperatives since they have no tense feature. A surrogate form that bears a tense feature is thus required in the negative. Both Kayne's and Zanuttini's analyses fail to account for the fact that even the surrogate informal imperatives can take either enclitics or proclitics in the negative, but only enclitics in the positive, as shown in (12) and (13). (The starred forms are grammatical as present indicative forms, but not as imperatives, the case that interests us here.) (12) a. Non parlategli Non gli parlate b. Parlategli *Gli parlote!

"Don't (you pl) speak to him" "Don't (you pl) speak to him" "(You pl) do speak to him"

(13) a. Non parliamogli Non gliparliamo b. Paliamogli *Gli parliamo

"Let's not talk to him" "Let's not talk to him" "Let's talk to him':

It is not possible to posit a null modal in the negative imperatives here, as was done in the other cases, since the verb form is not one that could follow a modal. While the details of Zanuttini's analysis are complex and not without problems, what is crucial here is that the second person singular informal positive imperative is a form entirely without tense features. No other morphologically free verbal form has this property. Instead, this is a property typical of verb stems. This property also follows from our analysis of the homophonous verb form found in verb+noun compounds and our claim that the relevant surface forms are bare verbal stems, devoid of any inflection. Finally, the fact that the theme vowel endings of the stems in the imperatives exhibit Vowel Raising (like those in the compounds) is predicted by the formulation of the Vowel Raising rule itself. That is, the rule applies to forms in which the theme vowel is not followed by any inflectional material, and this is precisely the case, as we have shown, for the imperatives in question.


5.

379

Conclusions

We have examined the productive word formation rule of Italian that creates compounds of the form verb+noun.7 The phonological shape of the verbal component of these compounds led us to propose that this element is a bare stem consisting of a tverb root and its theme vowel. A rule of Vowel Raising was shown to be necessary as well to arrive at the final form for second conjugation verbs. This analysis not only accounts for the forms observed in the compounds, it allows us to avoid the problems that arise if the verb form is analyzed as an inflected form. In addition, since the verbal component of the compounds in question is phonologically identical to the singular informal positive imperative form of the verb, we have proposed that the latter consists of the same bare (root+theme vowel) stem, an analysis that is independently motivated on the basis of syntactic properties of imperatives. While our study has focused on Italian, a number of the sources we cite discuss the corresponding compounds in other languages. It appears that certain aspects of our analysis of Italian may provide insight into other Romance languages, where many of the facts are quite similar, as well as into other languages that are not necessarily related to Italian. REFERENCES Allen, M. R. 1980. "Semantic and Phonological Consequences of Boundaries: A Morphological Analysis of Compounds". In Juncture, ed. by Mark Aronoff & Mary-Louise Kean. 9-27. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri. Aronoff, Mark. 1992. "Stems in Latin verbal morphology". In Morphology Now, ed. by Mark Aronoff. 5-32. Albany: SUNY Press. Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. Clements, C. 1990. "Lexical Category Hierarchy and 'Head of Compound' in Spanish". Ms. Indiana University. Contreras, Heles. 1985. "Spanish Exocentric Compounds". In Current Issues in Hispanic Phonology, ed. by F. H. Nuessel. 14-27. Bloomington: IULC. Coseriu, E. 1977. "Inhaltliche Wortbildungslehre". In Perspektieven der Wortbildungsforschung, ed. by H. E. Brekle & D. Kastovsky. 48-61. Bonn: Bouvier.

7

Pier Marco Bertinetto (personal communication) has pointed out the Dressier and Thornton (1991) have independently addressed some of the issues raised here. Their article was not available to us, however, when we wrote this paper.

380

VOGEL & NAPOLI

di Fabio, E. G. 1990. The Morphology of the Verbal Infix /-Isk-l in Italian and Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dressier, W.U. & Thornton, A.M. 1991. "Doppie basi e binarismo nella morfologia italiana". Rivista de Linguistics 3.3-22. Giorgi, A., & Longobardi, G. 1991. The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giurescu, A. 1965. "Contributi al modo di definire i sostantivi composti della lingua italiana". Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 10.395-400. Kayne, Richard. 1991. "Italian Negative Imperatives and Clitic Climbing". Ms. CUNY. Klingebiel, K. 1989. Noun + Verb Compounding in Western Romance. Berkeley: University of CA Press. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Merlo, C. 1949. "Del rafforzamento sintattico". Lingua Nostra 10.57-58. Meyer-Lubke, W. 1895. Grammaire des Langues Romances. Paris: Migliorini, B. 1946. "Primordi del 'Lei'". Lingua Nostra 7.25-29. Napoli, Donna J., & Vogel, Irene. 1990. "The Conjugations of Italian". Italica 67.479-502. Nünez-Cedeno, R. 1989. "On Headedness in Spanish Compounds". In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by C. Laeufer & T. A. Morgan . 19. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Oniga, R. 1988.I Composti Nominali Latini. Bologna: Patron. Pollock, J-Y. 1989. "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP". Linguistic Inquiry 20.365-424. Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1988. "The Structure of IP and V-Movement in the Languages of the Balkans". Ms. University of Ottawa. Rohlfs, G. 1969. Grammatica Storica della Lingua Italiana e dei suoi Dialetti. Torino: Einaudi. Scalise, S. 1983. Morfologia Lessicale. Padova: CLESP. . 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Tollemache, F. 1945. Le Parole Composte nella Lingua Italiana. Roma: Edizioni Rores di Nicola Ruffolo. Varela, S. 1989. "Spanish Endocentric Compounds and the 'Atom Condition'". In Studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. by C. Kirschner & J. DeCesaris. 397-412. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


381

Vogel, Irene. 1991. "Levels in the Italian Lexicon?" In Certamen Phono logicum, ed. by P. M. Bertinetto, M. Kenstowicz, & M. Loporcaro. 81-101. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. Wagner, M. L. 1946-47. Untitled review of two articles on Portuguese. Vox Romanica 326-334. Zanuttini, R. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D.dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zuffi, S. 1981. 'The Nominal Composition in Italian: Topics in Generative Morphology". Journal of Italian Linguistics 2.1-54.

Contemporary research in Romance linguistics: papers from the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, El Paso Cd. Juárez, February 1992

Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics Proc 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages

Issues and theory in romance linguistics: selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII, April 1-4, 1993

Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition: Selected Papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Gainesville, Florida, February 2000

The Rhaeto-Romance Languages (Romance Linguistics)

Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance: Selected Papers from the 38th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Urbana-Champaign, April 2008 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition, Selected Papers from the 32nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (Lsrl), Toronto, April 2002

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008: Selected Papers from ''Going Romance'' Goningen 2008 (Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory RLLT )

New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics : Selected Papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Austin, Texas, February 2005

Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XVIII), Pennsylvania State University, ... 1998 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance linguistics: theoretical perspectives : selected papers from the 27th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVII), Irvine, 20-22 February, 1997

Romance Linguistics 2007: Selected Papers From The 37th Linguistic Symposium On Romance Languages (LSRL), Pittsburgh, 15-18 March 2007 (Amsterdam Studies ... IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (Lsrl), Ann Arbor, 8-11 April 1999 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Tucson, Arizona, March 2009 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Theoretical And Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Salt Lake ... 2004 (Current Issues in Linguistics Theory)

Romance Linguistics 2010: Selected Papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Linguistics (LSRL), Seattle, Washington, March 2010 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' Amsterdam 2007

New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics Vol. 1: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics : Selected Papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance ... February (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

The Inflected Infinitive in Romance Languages (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics)

Sardinian Syntax (Romance Linguistics)

Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance Languages (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004: Selected Papers from 'Going Romance', Leiden, 911 December 2004 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History ... IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance

Romance

Romance

El fin del romance

Romance

Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction

Romance

Romance

From Ritual to Romance

Contemporary research in Romance linguistics: papers from the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, El Paso Cd. Juárez, February 1992

Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics Proc 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages

Issues and theory in romance linguistics: selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII, April 1-4, 1993

Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition: Selected Papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Gainesville, Florida, February 2000

The Rhaeto-Romance Languages (Romance Linguistics)

Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance: Selected Papers from the 38th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Urbana-Champaign, April 2008 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition, Selected Papers from the 32nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (Lsrl), Toronto, April 2002

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008: Selected Papers from ''Going Romance'' Goningen 2008 (Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory RLLT )

New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics : Selected Papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Austin, Texas, February 2005

Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XVIII), Pennsylvania State University, ... 1998 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance linguistics: theoretical perspectives : selected papers from the 27th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVII), Irvine, 20-22 February, 1997

Romance Linguistics 2007: Selected Papers From The 37th Linguistic Symposium On Romance Languages (LSRL), Pittsburgh, 15-18 March 2007 (Amsterdam Studies ... IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (Lsrl), Ann Arbor, 8-11 April 1999 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Tucson, Arizona, March 2009 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Theoretical And Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Salt Lake ... 2004 (Current Issues in Linguistics Theory)

Romance Linguistics 2010: Selected Papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Linguistics (LSRL), Seattle, Washington, March 2010 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' Amsterdam 2007

New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics Vol. 1: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics : Selected Papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance ... February (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

The Inflected Infinitive in Romance Languages (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics)

Sardinian Syntax (Romance Linguistics)

Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance Languages (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004: Selected Papers from 'Going Romance', Leiden, 911 December 2004 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History ... IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance

Romance

Romance

El fin del romance

Romance

Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction

Romance

Romance

From Ritual to Romance

Recommend Documents