A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections

A UNIFIED THEORY OF VERBAL AND NOMINAL PROJECTIONS Recent Titles in OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Richard Kayn...

Author: Yoshiki Ogawa

12 downloads 864 Views 19MB 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

A UNIFIED THEORY OF VERBAL AND NOMINAL PROJECTIONS

Recent Titles in OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Richard Kayne. General Editor Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions Marcel den Dikken

Multiple Feature Checking and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar Hiroyuki Ura

The Polysvnthesis Parameter Mark C. Baker

The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects Cecilia Poletto

The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax Anders Holmberg and Christer Platzack Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax Ur Shlonsky Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Studv of Romance Languages Raffaella Zanuttini Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax Edited by Alessandra Giorgi and Fabio Pianesi Coordination Janne Bondi Johanncssen Adverbs and Functional Heads: A CrossLinguistic Perspective Guglielmo Cinque The Feature Structure of Functional Categories Elabbas Benmamoun A Handbook of Slavic Clitics Steven Franks and Tracy Holloway King XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi- Urdu Ayesha Kidwai

The Syntax, of Verb-Initial Languages Edited by Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle Parameters and Universals Richard Kayne Portuguese Syntax: New Comparative Studies Edited by Joao Costa Infinitive Constructions: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages Guido Mensching Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar Edited by Aafke Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP Edited by Peter Svenonius A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections Yoshiki Ogawa Functional Structures in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 1 Edited by Guglielmo Cinque

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections

YOSHIKI OGAWA

OXTORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2001

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Sao Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 2001 by Yoshiki Ogawa Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ogawa, Yoshiki. A unified theory of verbal and nominal projections / Yoshiki Ogawa. p. cm. — (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Rev. and extended version of 2nd and 4th chapters of the author's thesis (Tohoku University—1997). Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-514387-6; ISBN 0-19-514388-4 (pbk.) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general. 2. Generative grammar. I. Title. II. Series. P151 .036 2001 415—dc21 00-057474

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Preface While it has long been recognized that noun phrases are parallel to clauses in many syntactic respects and while most syntactic theories have more or less incorporated this insight, nouns have generally been regarded as defective with respect to verbs in terms of their licensing abilities and the syntactic elements they are supposed to take, and nominal projections have been regarded as less complex than verbal projections in terms of the number of functional categories that they contain. However, it is conceptually desirable to argue that clauses and noun phrases are perfectly parallel and to seek a derivation of apparent disparities between them from the interaction of independently necessary principles and parameters which are formulated in category-neutral and context-free terms. The purpose of this work is to provide a unified theory of clauses and noun phrases, according to which verbal and nominal projections contain the same number of lexical and functional categories, the same syntactic elements, the same licensing abilities, and participation in the same syntactic operations, thereby eliminating ad hoc or superfluous stipulations that distinguish nominal from verbal categories/projections and simplifying the theory of grammar. Specific claims to be justified in this work are as follows: (i) clauses and noun phrases both have a projection of complementizer; (ii) they have a parallel distribution of null affixes and phi-features; (iii) N licenses the same empty categories as V; (iv) nominalization, which is standardly claimed to be a lexical process, takes place in the syntax, by overt verb raising to a higher functional head, and (v) middle verbs and simple event nominals are derived from transitive verbs and complex event nominals, respectively, by the same mechanism. Furthermore, it is claimed that the Case adjacency requirement on NPs (in object positions) and the limited distribution of null complementizers in clausal domains are uniformly explained by a single condition on inflectional affixes. The present work helps us approach some issues concerning the syntaxmorphology interface in a new way and, we hope, provides a hint for explicating the semantics of complementizers and clauses headed by them. This book is a substantially revised and extended version of the second and fourth chapters of my 1997 dissertation submitted to Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. I would like to thank my thesis supervisors and committee members Masaru Nakamura, S.-Y. Kuroda and Yoshiaki Kaneko, who encouraged me to start this project and continued to support me while I worked on it. Incidentally, some of the remaining chapters of my dissertation have been or will be published

vi

Preface

elsewhere: the essence of chapter 3 has appeared in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29 (Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2), and a revised version of chapter 5 is to appear in the March issue of Language 77. Thanks also go to a number of people in and outside the department of English linguistics for their encouragement and/or useful comments. Only some of them are listed here: Toshihiko Asaka, Sonoko Chiba, Yoshihito Dobashi, Susan Fischer, Yoshihisa Goto, Yuji Hatakeyama, Makoto Kadowaki, Akira Kikuchi, Takeshi Kumagai, Tadao Maruta, Nobuhiro Miyoshi, Hisashi Naito, Yoshio Nakamura, Toshihiro Namba, Kunio Nishiyama, and Etsuroh Shima. Above all, I thank Etsuroh Shima for the fruitful nine years during which I could enjoy discussion of academic and other topics with him. I am also heavily indebted to S.-Y. Kuroda and Masaru Nakamura, without whose encouragement I would not have thought of sending a manuscript of this book to Richard Kayne. As I worked on extending various ideas and/or completing the final version of this book, insightful comments and suggestions by Koji Fijita, Hideki Kishimoto, Masatoshi Koizumi, Kunio Nishiyama, Hiromu Sakai, Daiko Takahashi, an anonymous reviewer at Oxford University Press, and two anonymous reviewers at a journal were immeasurably valuable. I also thank Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for the financial support for the three years after I completed my thesis. And of course, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents who continued to give me their love and moral support while I was a (graduate) student. Regrettably, my father suddenly passed away shortly after I had submitted my Ph. D. While I am saddened by his death, I am grateful that he lived long enough to hear that I had completed it. Hence, this book is dedicated to my mother and to the memory of my father. Sendai, Japan March 2001

Y. O.

Contents Chapter One: Introduction and Theoretical Assumptions 1.1 1.2

3

The Issues The Minimalist Framework 1.2.1 The Computational Component 1.2.2 Phrase Structure Theory 1.2.3 9 -theory 1.2.4 Movement and Checking Theory 1.2.5 Word Order and the LCA Outline of the Book The Limits of Unification

3 5 5 6 8 9 14 15 16

Chapter Two: Verb Raising and Null Complementizers

20

1.3 1.4

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4

2.5

Introduction Null Complementizers as Null Affixes 2.2.1 A Condition on Null Affixes 2.2.2 Null Complementizers as Null Affixes 2.2.3 Some Notes on Overt Complementizers Null Complementizers in Finite Clausal Complements 2.3.1 Overt Verb Raising and Null Complementizers 2.3.2 Tell-class Verbs and Suggest-class Verbs Further Cross-linguistic Data 2.4.1 Chinese 2.4.2 Romance Languages 2.4.3 Germanic Languages 2.4.4 Japanese 2.4.5 Celtic Languages 2.4.6 Arabic Languages 2.4.7 Modern Greek: A Balkan Language 2.4.8 Hungarian: A Finno-Ugric Language 2.4.9 Edo: A Nigerian Language 2.4.10 A Summary Null Cs in the Complement of Derived Nominals: A Sketch

20 22 22 23 24 25 25 26 28 28 29 32 52 57 61 62 64 67 68 71

Contents

viii 2.6 2.7

Null Cs in ECM and Control Complements Wh-Movement and Null Cs 2.7.1 Null Cs in Interrogative Clauses 2.7.2 Null Cs in the Complement of Tough Adjectives 2.7.3 Wh-Movement through [Spec, C] and Null Cs 2.7.4 Interrogative Clauses in Complement Positions 2.7.5 Deriving Cheng's (199 Generalization 2.7.6 Null Cs in the Root Clauses 2.7.7 Null Cs in Relative Clauses 2.7.8 A Summary 2.8 Null Complementizers in Raising Complements 2.8.1 The CP-Status of Raising Complements 2.8.2 NP-movement through [Spec, C] 2.8.3 The Complement of Allege-class Verbs 2.9 Some Loose Ends 2.9.1 Placement of Modifiers 2.9.2 No Null Cs in Factive Complements 2.9.3 Null Cs in Subjunctive Complements 2.9.4 Some Comments on the "IP Hypothesis" of That-less Clauses 2.10 Conclusion

Chapter Three: Derived Nominals and Their Satellites 3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5

Introduction Null Cs in the Complement of Nominals 3.2.1 Null Cs in the Complement of Derived Nominals 3.2.2 CPs in Apposition to Nonderived Nominals and Their LF Movement N Is a Structural Case Marker Syntactic Nominalization: Evidence from Various Causative Constructions 3.4.1 Backward Binding in Clauses and Lack of Causative Nominals 3.4.2 The Double Object Construction and Lack of Ditransitive Nominals 3.4.3 Causative/Inchoative Alternation 3.4.4 Speech Act Verbs 3.4.5 A Summary Nz Is the Nominal Counterpart of the Light Verb 3.5.1 Be and Have Cannot Be Nominalized 3.5.2 Neither the Light Verb nor the Nominalizer Can Select PP 3.5.3 Morphological Realizations of Verbalizers and Nominalizers

73 76 76 76 77 79 81 83 84 88 89 89 91 92 93 93 97 101 106 118

137 137 139 139 148 157 160 161 166 172 173 175 176 177 178 179

Contents 3.6

3.7

Verbs, Derived Nominals, and Nonderived Nominals 3.6.1 Diagnostics for Distinguishing Three Types of Derived Nominals 3.6.2 Parallelisms between Simple Event Nominals and Middle Verbs 3.6.3 The Derivation of Result Nominals 3.6.4 Sentential Complements to Nouns 3.6.5 The Derivation of Verbal Gerunds 3.6.6 A Summary Conclusion

Chapter Four: The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases 4.1 4.2

Introduction The KP Hypothesis 4.2.1 A'-movement in NP and Case Alternation in Hungarian 4.2.2 The Co-occurrence of Determiners and Possessors 4.2.3 Pronominal Shift 4.2.4 Distribution of Phi-features 4.2.5 Case Particles 4.2.6 A Summary 4.3 The Case Adjacency Effects 4.3.1 Johnson (1991) 4.3.2 Problems with Johnson's Analysis 4.3.3 Koizumi (1993; 1995) 4.3.4 Potential Problems with Koizumi's Analysis 4.3.5 Chomsky (1995) 4.3.6 Potential Problems with Chomsky's Analysis 4.3.7 A Final Remark 4.3.8 A Morphological Approach to the Case Adjacency Problems 4.4 Concluding Remarks

ix 185 187 190 197 200 216 218 219

230 230 231 231 232 237 240 248 255 255 256 258 259 261 263 265 268 270 288

Chapter Five: Conclusion

299

References

302

Index

320

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations Besides commonly used abbreviations, we make use of the following notational abbreviations: Nom Acc Dat Gen Neg Spec Comp Komp Nz VN Pres Prog sg pi fem masc OP OB COP ECM ECP SEN

Nominative Case Accusative Case Dative Case Genitive Case Negation Specifier Complementizer Komplementizer Nominalizer verbal noun present tense progressive singular plural feminine masculine operator object copula Exceptional Case Marking Empty Category Principle simple event nominal

XI

Erg Abs Top Foc Imperf Caus Adv Adj Subj def indef AgrP Dec Pass Hon Loc SU SC CL MLC CEN RN

Ergative Case Absolutive Case Topic Focus Imperfect Causative Adverb Adjective Subjunctive definite indefinite Agreement Phrase declarative passive honorification locative subject small clause classifier Minimal Link Condition complex event nominal result nominal


A UNIFIED THEORY OF VERBAL AND NOMINAL PROJECTIONS


1 Introduction and Theoretical Assumptions

1.1 The Issues The generative grammar of a language is a theory that is concerned with the form and meaning of expressions of the natural language. The core idea of the theory is that the form and meaning are determined by the 'language faculty,' which is an innate component of the human mind. Although the original descriptive mechanism that implemented this idea (Chomsky 1975 [1955]) has received modification and simplification during the past four decades and has been reduced to the level of virtual conceptual necessity in Chomsky (1995), the central issue of the generative grammar remains unchanged: we are to explore the optimal systems of phrase structure and movements (Chomsky 1970, 1981, 1986a, 1986b, 1991, 1993, 1995). The aim of this book is to improve the project by proposing a unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. Pursuit of the parallelism between clauses and noun phrases has been one of the central concerns in generative literature, and its discovery has considerably contributed to the elimination of the phrase structure rules and the construction of a more general and abstract theory of phrase structure: X'-theory. During last two decades we have experienced extension of the X'-theory to functional categories (Chomsky 1981, 1986b) and reorganization of the internal structure of noun phrases under the extended X'-theory (Fukui 1986; Abney 1987; among many others), which have brought far-reaching and immeasurable consequences. 3

4


Some linguists have occasionally extended the X'-theory even to the functional categories related to A or P (such as Agr-AP, Agr-PP), and in this sense the currently assumed X'-theory can say nothing special about verbal and nominal projections. However, it seems widely assumed that verbal and nominal projections share a number of nontrivial common properties that distinguish them from AP and PP. One such point is that small clauses headed by A or P are predicates and denote either properties or relations, and therefore are not referential, whereas (full) clauses and noun phrases can occur as external arguments of some predicates and denote referable entities. Another point is that AP and PP in a complement position are always transparent for extraction of some element, whereas the maximal projections of V and N sometimes constitute syntactic islands. Still another is that while AP and PP can freely occur in an adjoined position as modifiers of some predicates, severe restrictions are imposed on the occurrence of noun phrases and clauses in modifier positions (bare NP adverbs, relative clauses, and concessive clauses seem to exhaust all the possibilities). For these reasons, it is methodologically not implausible to propose a unified syntactic analysis of clauses and noun phrases by ignoring APs and PPs for the moment. In fact, it is reasonable, if not logically necessary, to assume that certain functional projections that can be combined with VP and NP but cannot be (directly) combined with AP and PP are responsible for the argumenthood, referentiality, and/or islandhood of verbal and nominal maximal projections. On the basis of this general hypothesis, in this book I pursue the maximal parallelism between (elements in) clauses and noun phrases and reconsider, under this view, some unnatural aspects of currently proposed theoretical devices and empirical data that have supported those devices. Specific ideas include the following: (1) clauses and noun phrases contain the same number of functional projections in them; (2) verbal and nominal projections have the same hierarchical arrangement of phi-features; (3) the light verb (which introduces an external argument in its Spec and selects 'VP' as its complement; Chomsky 1995) is the 'verbalizer' of 'VP', and there is a corresponding functional projection of 'nominalizer' in a noun phrase headed by a derived nominal; (4) both V and N can 'check' a structural Case in their extended projections; (5) both V and N can be 'inactivized' in their argument structure and event structure under certain conditions; (6) both V and N can in principle license null (affixal) heads in their complement, unless the clausal complement is moved out; (7) the so-called Case Adjacency effect allegedly observed between a transitive V and its nominal direct object is not a generalization exclusively about noun phrases but is part of a more general phenomenon observed for any phrase headed by a null affix. The backbone that runs through this book is the hypothesis that a certain inflectional (null) affix that can head both a clause and a noun phrase and a single condition on inflectional affixes determine the forms and distribution of the clauses and noun phrases. More specifically, in chapter 2, I introduce a condition on inflectional affixes based on Myers's (1984) generalization and extend Pesetsky's (1995) idea in order to explain the fact that null Complementizers are not allowed in the complement of verbs in many languages. This fact is focused

Introduction and Theoretical Assumptions

5

on in this book in view of the understanding that it has been ignored in the traditional ECP-based approaches to the distribution of null Complementizers (Kayne 1981; Stowell 1981). In chapter 3, exploiting the results obtained in chapter 2, I develop two hypotheses concerning the formation of derived nominals and the clausal complements to a nominal category: (a) formation of event nominals involves overt verb raising to a nominalizing functional category (which is called 'Nz'); and (b) sentential complements which are scmantically in apposition to a nominal move to [Spec, D] in LF in order to check an uninterpretable V-feature and get out of the scope of the definite article (cf. Kayne 1994). These two hypotheses interact with some auxiliary assumptions to allow us a unified account for the generalization that nouns cannot license the null C in their complement, whether they are event nominals or result nominals, unless they are part of complex predicates, as in the modal construction (Ross 1986), and the fact that (most) event nominals cannot take a sentential complement, even if the latter is headed by an overt Complementizer (Stowell 1981). In chapter 4, I argue for the morphosyntactic parallelism between the three functional categories that constitute a clause on the one hand, that is, C(omplementizer), T(ense), and the light verb v (Chomsky 1995), and those that constitute a noun phrase on the other, that is, K(omplementizer), D(eterminer) and Nominalizer (Nz). Moreover, exploiting the results obtained in the previous chapters, I propose a novel approach to the so-called Case adjacency effects and their cross-linguistic variations. The new approach is free from the parametrization on the level at which object shift takes place and the scmantically vacuous functional category Agr (Koizumi 1995), and instead makes a specific reference to the internal structure of noun phrases and the morphological realization of the functional head K. In this work, we adopt the minimalist program of linguistic theory envisaged in Chomsky (1993, 1994) and refined in Chomsky (1995). The minimalist program is still in progress, and no consensus has been reached yet among generative grammarians about how to formulate theories of theta roles, binding, movement, and checking. However, some promising ideas have been proposed in these areas. In what follows, let us introduce some of them that are relevant to our discussion.

1.2 The Minimalist Framework 1.2.1 The Computational Component The minimalist framework proposed in Chomsky (1993) and developed in Chomsky (1994, 1995), is a new version of the principles and parameters theory proposed in Chomsky (1981). It seeks to reduce the descriptive mechanism to the level of virtual conceptual necessity, sharply restricting the devices available for description. It differs from the Extended Standard Theory (Chomsky 1972) in the following points:


6 (1)

Numeration I I Spell-Out — Morphology — PF I I LF

D-structure and S-structure are eliminated, and PF and LF are the only linguistic levels of representation in linguistic theory. PF and LF are interpreted as the articulatory-perceptual and conceptual-intentional interfaces, respectively. The language L is regarded as a derivation-generating procedure, which applies to a numeration N and forms a linguistic expression ( ), where is a PF representation and A is an LF representation. A numeration (N) is a set of pairs (LI, i), where LI is an item of the lexicon and i is its index, understood to be the number of times that LI is selected. The N expresses the compatibility relation between and A in that they are based on the same lexical items. A derivation that starts from the N proceeds uniformly until it reaches LF. A computation constructed by the computational system of human language (C,,L) does not count as a derivation unless all the indices in N are reduced to zero. Spell-Out, which produces a PF representation, may apply at any point in the derivation from N to . A derivation converges if elements of ( , ) satisfy Full Interpretation (FI) at both PF and LF. Otherwise, a derivation crashes. Economy considerations select the admissible derivations among the convergent derivations. We also assume, following Chomsky (1993, 1995) and Halle and Marantz (1993), that Morphology is a level that resides in the PF component after Spell-Out and checks the well-formedness of (derived) words. 1.2.2 Phrase Structure Theory X'-theory is a theory of phrase structure that has replaced the PS-rules in the 1960s. The most standard version of it assumes the following properties (Chomsky 1981; Fukui 1986; Kuroda 1988; among many others): (2) a. Endocentricity: Every phrase has a single head. b. Binarity: A node may have at most two daughters. c. Maximality: A head can license at most one Spec in its maximal projection.1


7

However, since (2a-c) are nothing more than stipulations, they should be eliminated or derived from a more fundamental principle, if possible. Chomsky (1994) proposes to eliminate the X'-theory in favor of the bare phrase structure theory. In the bare phrase structure theory, notions such as maximal or minimal are only relational: a category that does not project any further is a maximal projection XP; a category that does not project at all is a minimal projection X°; and any other is X', invisible at the interface and for computation. This means that more than one Spec can in principle be licensed in a single maximal projection, as in (4) (i.e., 'maximality' has been discarded):2

Furthermore, Chomsky (1994) attempts to derive the endocentricity and binarity from the simplest assumption that is necessary on conceptual grounds alone (but see Kayne 1994 for a different view). Given the initial numeration (N), the operations of CHL are defined as recursive procedures that construct syntactic objects from items in N and syntactic objects already formed. Suppose that a derivation has reached the stage , which is taken to be a set {SO1( . . . , SO of syntactic objects. At the LF interface, 2 can be interpreted only if it consists of a single syntactic object. In addition, all the indices in the N must be reduced to zero by definition. Then, at least two types of operations must apply often enough for the derivation to converge at LF. One is a procedure that selects a lexical item LI from the N, reducing its index by 1, and introduces it into the derivation as SOn+1. Call the operation Select. Another is a procedure that takes a pair of two syntactic objects (SOi, SOj) and replaces them by a new combined syntactic object SOij Call the operation Merge. Given the N, the two operations are necessary components of any natural language. Let us consider more on Merge. Applied to two objects a and , Merge forms the new object K, eliminating a and . What is K? Since the simplest object constructed from a and is the set { , }, K must involve at least this set. K must also involve its label, which we represent by , as in { , { , }}. r is taken to be information about the type to which K belongs. We simply assume here, following Chomsky (1995:244), that r is either a or . This means that either a or projects to K and is the head of K. If a projects, K = { ,{ , }}. Now, we are ready to derive the endocentricity and binarity stipulated as such in the X'- theory. The binarity follows from the simplest assumption that Merge applies to exactly two objects. It may be logically possible that Merge


8

sometimes applies to three or four objects. However, admitting such possibilities is a divergence from the simplest definition of Merge (cf. Collins 1997). The endocentricity follows from the assumption that either a or projects to K. If K is [ , { , }} and it is merged with L to form M, where M = { , {L, K}}, then this means that M = P, that is, a heads M. Hence, the maximal projection M is endocentric. The same conclusion can be reached even if projects to form M'={ ,{L, { ,{ , }}}}. I admit that the bare phrase structure theory is essentially correct and adopt most consequences of this theory. In this book, however, we use a traditional notation of phrase structure, just for ease of exposition. In the bare phrase structure theory, a formal representation of the interesting book, for example, is (5a), rather than (5b). However, we continue to use the conventional representation (5b) throughout, since none of our argument hinges on the choice between (5a) and (5b):

1.2.3

-theory

In a standard generative framework, the 9 -theory is assumed to determine the positions in which thematic arguments originate. In the past decade, there has been presented good evidence for the predicate-internal subject hypothesis, according to which the subject of a sentence originates a position lower than [Spec, I] (Kuroda 1992; Fukui 1986; Kitagawa 1986; Koopman and Sportiche 1991; Diesing 1992; Koizumi 1993, 1995; Chomsky 1995; Nishiyama 1998; among many others). In particular, Chomsky (1995) proposes a version of the predicate-internal subject hypothesis, according to which a subject originates in the Spec of the functional category v and an object originates as the complement of the lexical category V, where v selects VP as its complement:


9

We assume this version of the predicate-internal subject hypothesis throughout this book. A related question is whether there is an actual process of -role assignment. Hale and Keyser (1993) argue that since a thematic interpretation each NP receives is determined on the basis of structural position it occupies at the level which they call the Lexical Conceptual Structure or Lexical Relational Structure, neither 9 -roles nor 9 -role assignment is necessary. Although I have explicitly developed a similar idea based on independent grounds in Ogawa (1997: chapter 6), the more standard version of 9 -theory suffices for the discussion in this book. 1.2.4 Movement and Checking Theory The theory of movement has probably received the most attention from the beginning of the generative grammar. The principles and parameters theory has taken the position that movement takes place for morphological licensing and that a position for morphological licensing is generally different from a position for thematic interpretation.3 In the minimalist program, every movement (or Move) takes place in order to satisfy the morphological property of the moved element itself (the principle of Greed): (7) Greed: Every movement must satisfy the morphological property of the moved element itself. Move is also constrained by a couple of principles of economy of derivation. The economy constraints play a role only when there are two or more convergent derivations that start from a single numeration: given two or more convergent derivations that start from the same numeration, the more 'economical' one is chosen as the admissible derivation (Chomsky 1991, 1993, 1995). In this sense, the numeration is to 'fix the reference set for determining whether a derivation from [the initial array] A to ( , ) is optimal — that is, not blocked by a more economical derivation' (Chomsky 1995:227). One of the economy constraints is the Minimal Link Condition (MLC), which says that each link of a chain must be as short as possible. (8) is ruled out by the MLC, since John in (9) undergoes A-movement to the Spec of TP in the matrix clause, and this one-step movement skips one potential landing site, [Spec, T] in the embedded clause, which is filled by the expletive it: (8) *Johnjseems that [it is likely ti to win the prize]. (9) *[TP1 Johni [T1 T1 ... [1P2 it [„ T2 [vp... t i ,... ]]]]] Another economy condition is Procrastinate, which says that if both overt and covert operations converge, the covert option is more economical. In the

10


minimalist program, every movement is feature-driven, and what triggers an overt syntactic operation is a strong feature of the target functional category. Thus, John in (10) moves to the Spec of TP because the T has a strong D-feature that must be checked against the moved element:

In (10), both v and Mary have a Case feature to be checked against each other. However, Mary does not have to move until LF, since the Case features of both v and Mary are weak. Therefore, Procrastinate requires the movement of Mary to take place at LF. On the other hand, the movement of John in (10) must take place in overt syntax, since strong features, if left unchecked before Spell-Out, will be visible but uninterpretable at PF, and the derivation crashes at PF. Every movement must target the checking domain of a particular functional head. Following Koizumi (1994), we posit two types of checking domains (CD): the inner and outer checking domains. We assume the inner checking domain of a head X to be its Spec and a position adjoined to X. A position adjoined to XP is excluded from the inner checking domain of X. We also assume that when a head H raises to X as in (1la), the Spec of XP is also the inner checking domain of the nontrivial chain (H, t). On the other hand, we assume that the XP-adjoined position is in the outer checking domain of X and (H, t). These points are schematized as follows:

We assume further that every movement must land in the inner checking domain of a particular head, whereas an element in an XP-adjoined position can enter into checking relation with X or (H, tH) if it is introduced to that position by Merge. Given this, no movement is allowed to an XP-adjoined position, though baseadjunction to that position is permitted in principle. We have introduced several principles of economy on the traditional assumption that Move applies to categories. Chomsky (1995) has discarded this assumption and proposes the Move-F(eature) Hypothesis, according to which every movement can in principle be movement of formal features that constitute a category rather than the category itself, and when a category is moved, some phonological requirement forces it. He also suggests the following economy condition on movement (Chomsky 1995:262), which says in essence that feature movement is more economical than category movement: (12) F carries along just enough material for convergence. The interaction of the Move-F hypothesis and (12) forces all LF movement to be


11

feature movement, since whatever phonological requirement forces movement of categories in overt syntax does not apply in covert syntax. Hence, (13) holds: (13) All LF movement is feature movement. Furthermore, Chomsky reformulates Move-F as Attract-F and incorporates MLC and Greed into the definition of Move, defining Attract-F as in (14): (14) K attracts F if F is the closest feature that can enter into a checking relation with a sublabel of K. (ibid.:297) Given (14), Move-F can take place only if a target K attracts F and K can attract F only if F can license K. Under the Attract-F Hypothesis, let us reconsider (8): (8) *Johniseems that [it is likely tito win the prize]. What rules out (8) remains to be the MLC. However, now it is not ruled out because the movement of John crosses it. Rather, we have to look at the structure in (15), assuming that the numeration N includes an expletive it in it: (15) [TPT [VP is likely to John win the prize]] As the next step of derivation after T is merged with its complement vP, T must have some DP in its Spec, since it has a strong D-feature. There are two ways for the checking of the strong feature: either selecting it from the numeration and merging it with TP or attracting John from inside vP. Now, suppose that Merge is more economical than Move, since Move contains Merge in its suboperations (Chomsky 1995). Then, the option of selecting it from the numeration is chosen as the next step: (16) [TP2 it [T2 T2 [vp is likely to John win the prize ]]] After some applications of Merge to (16), (17) is derived: (17) [TP T [vpseems [CP that [TP it [T- T [VP is likely to John win the prize ]]]]]] Here, since the matrix T has a strong D-feature and the numeration no longer involves a DP, it must attract some DP in its complement domain. Given the definition of Attract-F in (14), the matrix T must attract it rather than John since it is closer to it than John is. Then, (8) is never generated since the MLC prevents the matrix T from attracting John.4 Ura (1993) presents the generalization that the counterpart of (8) is wellformed in languages that allow multiple subjects. One way to accommodate this fact is to introduce the notion "equidistance." Let us define this notion as follows:

12 (18) a and

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections are equidistant to/from r iff they are in the same checking domain.

Given (18), consider the following stage of derivation, at which the strong Dfeature of T, is from attract some DP in its complement domain:

In (19), since both DPi and DPj are in the checking domain of T2 (cf. (11)), they are equidistant to T,. Hence, T, can attract either. If DPi is attracted, (20) is derived:

The movement of DPi in (20) is identical to the movement of John in (9), except that it moves through the (outer) Spec of TP2. However, thanks to the realization of multiple Specs in TP, the derivation in (20) satisfies the definition of Attract-F, and it does not violate any other condition. The corollary is that the so-called superraising is permitted only if T can license multiple Specs. We have briefly summarized standard assumptions currently accepted among researchers that work on the minimalist program of linguistic theory. Those assumptions are not necessarily evaluated equally. On the one hand, it is more fundamental, and probably true, to say that every movement is morphologically driven. Denying this assumption is tantamount to denying the minimalist program. Hence, we adopt it. On the other hand, assumptions about LF movement (or the distinction between overt and LF movements) can still be controversial. Thus, we may ask whether the principle of Procrastinate is necessary independent of the claim that all LF movement is feature movement. Suppose that, other things being equal, feature movement is more economical than category movement, since it moves lesser elements (cf. (12)). If such an economy condition is feasible, then LF movement, which favors feature movement, will be preferred to overt movement, which has to be category movement, even without postulating the principle of Procrastinate. Hence, the latter principle will be unnecessary. Alternatively, we may follow Roberts (1998) in claiming that every movement (for formal feature checking) takes place in overt syntax, there being no LF movement, and that feature movement is identified with the movement for weak feature checking, whereas category movement is identified with the movement for strong feature checking. If this idea is on the right track, the principle of Procrastinate is no more definable, since the opposition between overt and LF movements has been eliminated. The point to be emphasized here is that whether the principle of Procrastinate must be maintained as it stands or can be reduced to a more general principle is dependent on how we define the LF component and a movement in the component. Another issue that has to do with the last question is whether (13) is a valid corollary. Suppose there is an instance of movement that is universally invisible.


13

For such an instance of movement, there is no conceptual motivation to determine whether we should analyze it as feature movement in overt syntax, a category movement in LF, or feature movement in LF, all being invisible to the PF output. Hence, only empirical considerations can determine which analysis is correct. The so-called null operator movement may be one instance of universal feature movement if a feature-only movement suffices to make a legitimate operatorvariable construction that could be properly interpreted in LF (Takahashi 1997). On the other hand, we could argue that if a feature-only movement does not suffice to satisfy an interpretive requirement, a category movement must take place. The requirement that presuppositional DPs move out of VP at LF (Diesing 1992) may be one such instance, and Quantifier Raising (QR) may be another. Note that a logical representation of (21a) is (21b), where the left bracket contributes to the restriction of the universal quantifier and the right bracket provides the operator's nuclear scope: (21) a. John greets everyone that Bill does. b. x [person (x) & greet (Bill, x)] [greet (John, x)] (22) a. [everyone that Bill does [VP e]], [John greets ?t]. b. QF(every one), John greets [[everyone (ti)] [Bill does [VP e]]]. In order to map (2la) into the logical representation in (21b) by copying the matrix VP into the elided VP in the output of QR, the QR applied to (2la) must move the whole DP everyone Bill does [e] as in (22a); it does not suffice to move only the quantifier feature of everyone, as in (22b); in the latter case, the copying of the matrix VP to the deleted VP recreates another empty VP, which can never be eliminated by the copying process, and leads to the so-called infinite regress problem (May 1985). Therefore, we must conclude that QR is a category movement even if it is an LF movement (cf. Kennedy 1997 for a more detailed argument). We can construct a similar argument for the hypothesis that the LF movement of a presuppositional DP is category movement (cf. Diesing 1992). Generally speaking, movements that have something to do with nominal quantification must be category movements, since nominal quantification in natural language is restricted and since movement of just quantifier features does not suffice to make a restriction. Note that this conclusion is perfectly compatible with the Move-F theory. In order to make the theory compatible with the fact that overt movements attracted by a strong feature must be category movement, Chomsky (1995:262-263) suggests (23): (23) The operation Move ... seeks to raise just F. Whatever 'extra baggage' is required for convergence involves a kind of 'generalized pied-piping.' ... For the most part — perhaps completely — it is properties of the phonological component that require such pied-piping. Isolated features and other scattered parts of words may not be subject to its rules, in which case

14

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections the derivation is canceled; or the derivation might proceed to PF with elements that are 'unpronounceable,' violating FI.. .. In any event, properties of the phonological component have a major (perhaps the total) effect on defining pied-piping.

In short, Chomsky's suggestion is that category movement is necessary just in order to make the phonological interpretation feasible, and that there is perhaps no pied-piping forced on semantic grounds. However, the latter suggestion is not based on logical necessity. Rather, if semantic interpretation is not feasible without moving a category, then the economy condition in (12) should not preclude the generalized pied-piping for LF convergence just as it does not preclude the overt category movement for PF convergence. It may be unreasonable to assume, as Chomsky does, that there is an asymmetry between the two interface levels in this respect. Then, the LF category movement for the sake of semantic interpretation is motivated on conceptual grounds as well, and is perfectly compatible with the overall theory of Move-F. Example (12) forces LF feature movement if and only if there is no semantic difference whether a set of formal features or a larger category that contains it is moved. 1.2.5 Word Order and the LCA In the bare phrase structure theory, phrase structures are constructed by Merge. Syntactic objects formed by Merge are unordered sets without any information about linear order. Determination of the linear order is a matter of phonological alignment of lexical items extraneous to the core system of linguistic computation. However, considering that word order actually affects many syntactic phenomena, including binding and scope, we need some principle to 'force the set of nonterminals to inherit the antisymmetry of the linear ordering of the terminals' (Kayne 1994:9). The principle that plays this role is the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). The most important consequence of the LCA is that 'specifier-headcomplement is the only order available to the subcomponents of a phrase' (Kayne 1994:36). This means that every language is 'head-initial' in the base and that the so-called head-final languages involve leftward movement of the complement to the Spec of a higher functional head. Suppose that the relevant functional head is v. Then, the surface structure of a mono-clausal transitive sentence in SOV languages is schematized as in either (24a) or (24b), depending on whether the language also has overt verb raising (a variant of (24b) that hinges on the Agrbased Case Theory and in which X = C is proposed by Koizumi 1995):

It is often difficult to distinguish between (24a) and (24b) and both types of SOV


15

languages may exist, though I believe that we can distinguish them if there is a reliable test demonstrating the presence or absence of overt verb raising. See the conclusion of chapter 2. Admitting that (some version of) the LCA is necessary in the bare phrase structure theory, in the following discussion we put it aside and use the traditional head-parameter in order to distinguish SOV languages from SVO languages for simplicity, because the overt object shift in SOV languages is mostly irrelevant for our discussion and because adopting the LCA merely complicates our discussion. However, let me emphasize here that we are not rejecting the LCA or its empirical consequences but just suspending them (but see Ogawa 1996b).5

1.3 Outline of the Book On the basis of the framework just sketched, I develop my proposals concerning the parallelism between verbal and nominal projections. A brief summary of the content of each chapter goes as follows: in chapter 2,1 start my discussion from a fact that has fallen out of any principles-and-parameters approaches to null Complementizers: that they cannot be licensed in the complement of verbs in many languages other than English. I first demonstrate the generalization that if the null C is unlicensed in a finite nonfactive complement clause, the verb that selects it is overtly raised to a verbalizing functional head. Assuming that every finite clause is CP and that the null C is an affix (Pesetsky 1992, 1995), I explain the generalization by means of a condition on inflectional affixes which is based on Myers's Generalization (Myers 1984). I also suggest that if derived nominals are formed by syntactic verb raising to a nominalizing functional head (= Nz), their failure to license the null C in their complement can be attributed to the same condition. The discussion in this chapter leads us to the conclusion, against Kayne (1981), that both V and N can in principle license the null C in their complement clause. Several other issues related to the topics just noted are also discussed in this chapter, such as the relation between the null C and whmovement, the relation between the null C and NP-movement, the occurrence of the null C in a moved CP, and the alternative hypothesis that that-less finite clauses are IP. In chapter 3,1 argue at length for the hypothesis that derived event nominals are formed by syntactic verb raising to Nz. In consideration of the semantic relation between derived nominals and their sentential complements, I argue that the impossibility of the null C in the complement of a derived nominal motivates the syntactic nominalization hypothesis partially but strongly. Additional motivations for the hypothesis are provided from the discussion of the nominalization of causative verbs and the demonstration that Ns assign structural Case rather than inherent Case. Furthermore, I tackle Stowell's (1981) Generalization that event nominals cannot take a sentential complement and that a sentential complement to a result nominal must be in apposition to it. I attempt to explain the generalization by the interaction of general principles of grammar

16


and some claims about the morphological properties of C. Specifically, I propose that every sentential complement in English has an uninterpretable V-feature and that the so-called appositive clauses must move to [Spec, D] in LF in order to check off the feature. This proposal is scmantically motivated by Kayne's (1994) analysis of the nonrestrictive relative clauses. Moreover, combination of this proposal with the syntactic nominalization hypothesis enables us to explain the first generalization of Stowell on purely morphosyntactic grounds, unlike Stowell (1981) and Grimshaw (1990), who defend a 9 -theoretic account. My proposal receives support from two facts in conflict with Stowell's Generalization: (i) some event nominals in Japanese can take a sentential complement, and (ii) result nominals that occur in the modal construction in English can take sentential complements interpreted as their internal arguments (Ross 1986). In chapter 4, I propose that, just as clauses have a projection of Complementizer (CP), noun phrases have a projection of Komplementizer (KP) and that languages may differ with respect to whether or not K is filled by an overt element. On the basis of this proposal and the assumption that, just like the null C, the null K is universally an inflectional affix, I provide a unified explanation for the Case adjacency effects in English and its absence in Romance languages and languages with a particle system of Case. Our explanation of cross-linguistic variation as to the presence or absence of the Case adjacency effect is built on a certain difference in the internal structure of noun phrases across languages, whereas a previous approach to it (cf. Koizumi 1995) attributes it to the parameter as to the level at which object shift and/or verb raising takes place, without considering the internal structure of a noun phrase at all. I provide several merits of my approach. This chapter also discusses the matter of the syntactic placement of phi-features (person, number, and gender) in clauses and noun phrases and certain asymmetries between pronouns and full NPs, among others.

1.4 The Limits of Unification As I have summarized earlier, I will develop a highly unified analysis of verbal and nominal projections. However, it is not the case, as one might expect, that I intend a perfect unification of them. There are a couple of irreducible differences between clauses and noun phrases. First of all, they crucially differ with respect to categorial specifications and/or Case properties: (25) a. I asked what time it was. b. I asked the time. (26) a. I wondered what time it was. b.*I wonder the time. Grimshaw (1979) convincingly argues that, given the logical identity of the (a) and (b) sentences in (25) and (26), the ill-formcdness of (26b) should be reduced


17

to the category selection (or subcategorization frame) of the matrix verb, which can be stated in terms of the ability of selecting a noun phrase in addition to a clause. On the other hand, Pesetsky (1982) argues that the category-selection can be dispensed with, since the contrast between (25b) and (26b) can be attributed to the Case Theory. Thus, one can state that ask, but not wonder, can assign Case to its object. Since the Case Theory requires every overt NP (in an argument position) to have Case, no verb that cannot assign Case to its object can take NP as its complement. Whether Grimshaw or Pesetsky is correct, it is clear that clauses are less restricted than noun phrases in their occurrences, and in this sense they cannot be identified with each other. Second, I do not claim that all the morphological properties of corresponding verbal and nominal categories are identical. I propose that clauses and noun phrases have the following parallel (four-layered) structures:

I also assume that in some language, V is raised overtly to T, triggered by the strong V-feature of T. However, these proposals do not entail or imply that in the same language, N is overtly raised to D, triggered by the strong N-feature of D. Whether a movement to a functional head takes place overtly or covertly simply reflects the morphological property of each functional head, so it may often be the case that, in the same language, T has a weak V-feature, whereas D has a strong N-feature. In fact, it might be the case that in the same language, D in a construction has a strong N feature, whereas D in another construction has a different specification. Since all these properties can be acquired by language learners through positive evidence, no theory of grammar would have to stipulate these kinds of parallelism. Note, however, that since parameter setting (e.g., strong vs. weak) is executed at the level of categories rather than for each lexical item, the following situation should not exist: one lexical item that occurs in a construction in a language has its X-feature fixed as 'strong', whereas another lexical item that occurs in the same construction in the same language has its Xfeature fixed as 'weak'. This situation should be avoided, anyway, whether or not we are going to pursue the parallelism between clauses and noun phrases. This is a minimally necessary assumption if we want to pursue a restrictive theory of grammar. Third, I do not claim that a verbal lexical item and the corresponding nominalized form should always share their subcategorization properties, unless one form is derived from the other by a syntactic transformation. Thus, when T checks Nominative Case, the D in the corresponding nominal construction does not have to check Nominative Case, since T and D are not related by syntactic transformation; it may check Genitive Case, for example. On the other hand, if a verbal lexical item and the corresponding nominalized form are related by syntactic transformation, they are expected to share all the subcategorization

18


frames. Thus, if the derived nominal admission is formed by syntactic affixation of -ion to the verb admit, they should share the property that they can subcategorize for both CP and KP. Essentially, all of the apparent obstacles against the attempt to unify clauses and noun phrases are somehow related to their morphology, syntax and/or semantics. As a matter of fact, if all the morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of corresponding (lexical and functional) categories that constitute clauses and noun phrases were identical, that would mean that we would not have to distinguish clauses and noun phrases. To the extent that all natural languages formally distinguish between them, however, it is naturally expected that there are some irreducible differences between them. It is exactly because we notice the irreducible differences between verbal categories/projections and nominal ones that we are inclined to illuminate a wide range of parallelisms between them and somehow explain them.

Notes 1. Fukui's (1986) framework is slightly different from the standard one in that as far as a head does not enter into agreement, it may have an unlimited number of X'projections, as in (i):

However, he claims that when the head X enters into Spec-Head agreement, its projection is 'closed off and there can be no more Specifiers licensed: (when X agrees with HP) In this sense, maximality is still maintained. 2. Needless to say, some restriction must be imposed on the licensing of the structure in (4) since not all categories of all languages license it. For instance, see Ogawa (1996b) for the proposal that only semantically vacuous (functional) heads with a strong D-feature can license multiple Specs. Alternatively, it could be proposed that a functional category can license multiple Specs iff it has at least one formal feature which is interpretable. The most trivial solution could be that whether a head can or cannot license multiple Specs may be a matter of parametrization. 3. On standard assumptions, the expletives such as there and it can check their formal features in the positions to which they are merged, since they are not arguments which require theta marking. As for there, however, we may propose that it originates inside VP and moves to the Spec of TP in overt syntax for feature checking. We do not explore the latter possibility here, though there are some pieces of circumstantial evidence for this proposal. 4. Even if it is attracted by the matrix T, the sentence is still ill-formed: (i) *It,Ti seems [(that) t''is (= T2) likely [t., to (= T3) [John win the race]]].


19

In Chomsky's (1995) system, all the Ts in (i) have a strong D-feature which can be checked by the expletive. Although the Case and phi-features of the matrix T cannot be checked by the expletive, they can be checked by the formal features of John when the matrix T attracts them at LF. Then, Chomsky's system, as it stands, cannot rule out (i). See Shima (1998) for a unified solution to (8) and (i) that does not induce this problem. 5. Kayne's formulation of the LCA is partially redundant in the minimalist program since some of its consequences also follow from the conceptions of the bare phrase structure. The problematic redundancy is that the binarity of phrase structure is derived from both the bare phrase structure and the LCA. See Chomsky (1995b) for a relevant discussion. Another potential problem with the LCA is that it disallows right-adjunction, which has to be admitted in order to derive correct orderings of postverbal adverbs and secondary predicates.

2 Verb Raising and Null Complementizers

2.1 Introduction In English, the functional head C (= complementizer) may be phonetically missing in the complement of a verb, but not in the complement of a noun. In French, however, C cannot be null even in the complement of a verb: (1)

a. John believed (that) she was ill. b. Jean croyait *(que) elle etait malade. (= (la)) c. the statement *(that) John is guilty

Stowell (1981) and Kayne (1981) provided a principled account for the asymmetry between (la) and (lc). In the framework of the principles and parameters theory (Chomsky 1981), they claimed that not only traces left by movement but also empty Cs must be licensed by Empty Category Principle (ECP). Stowell (1981) then attributed the asymmetry to ECP by claiming that the N is scmantically in apposition to its sentential complement and does not assign a 9 -role to it; since Q -role assignment is a prerequisite for proper head government, N cannot be qualified as a proper head governor. However, the sentential complement in (2) is clearly not in apposition to the N but should be regarded as the internal argument of the N, since it is the proposition to be proved and the proof can refer to the process of proving the proposition. Nevertheless, it cannot be headed by the null C: 20

Verb Raising and Null Complementizers

21

(2) the proof [*(that) John is qualified] This problem does not arise in Kayne (1981), who rules out (lc) by simply assuming that N does not govern elements inside its complement domain. However, this is a category-specific stipulation, which should be better eliminated. In any way, given the elimination of the government theory in the minimalist program, any ECP-based account of a fact has to be reconsidered. Pesetsky (1992, 1995) provides an ECP-free account of the relevant V/N asymmetry. He proposes that when there is no overt C, CP is headed by a null affixal C, which must incorporate into the selecting verb/adjective. Then, he argues that if the null C is adjoined to the selecting head and then the nominalizing affix attaches to the latter head, a configuration that does not comply with Myers's (1984) Generalization results. However, he does not mention anything about the asymmetry between (la) and (1b). In fact, this typological issue has not received a principled solution anywhere in the literature of generative syntax, to the best of my knowledge.1 The main theme of this chapter is to extend Pesetsky's account of the contrast between (la) and (lc) to (1b) and other similar cases by assuming the affixal status of the null C. I first present the generalization that if the C in a finite nonfactive complement clause must be overt, the verb selecting it has undergone overt verb raising. The obligatoriness of the overt C in (1b) falls under this generalization, since French is an overt verb raising language. I explain this generalization by proposing that movement of the head to which the null C is affixed to a certain higher functional head leads to a violation of a condition on inflectional affixes that applies in the PF component. In the course of the discussion, I also argue, departing from Pesetsky's original ideas, that the null C is universally an inflectional affix and that the host of the null C must be defined as the closest overt element that c-commands it. This argument is based on a detailed examination of languages in which (a certain subclass of) verbs overtly raise to C in both matrix and embedded clauses and the constructions which are legitimized only by overt wh-movement of a certain argument. Those hypotheses about the null C, coupled with one additional assumption, are also shown to accommodate Cheng's (1991) Generalization on wh-movement and Q-particles. This chapter is organized as follows: in section 2, I introduce a condition on inflectional affixes that determines the distribution of null Cs. In section 3, I argue for the relation between overt verb raising and the (im)possibility of null Cs in finite clausal complements, on the basis of facts in English and French. In section 4, I present a detailed examination of further cross-linguistic data, focusing on eight synchronically unrelated language families and the diachronic change of English. In section 5, I sketch how our theory can accommodate the fact that derived nominals cannot license a complement clause headed by the null C. In section 6, I provide a unified solution to why the ECM verbs cannot be nominalized and why Romance languages do not have the ECM construction. In section 7, I argue for the satisfaction of the null affixal C by overt wh-movement.

22


A novel analysis of raising complements is proposed in section 8, where I argue for the satisfaction of the null C in a raising complement by overt NP-movement. In section 9, I solve some loose ends with the present theory. A conclusion is reached at section 10.

2.2 Null Complementizers as Null Affixes In this section I introduce Myers's Generalization and reinterpret it as a condition on inflectional affixes, departing from Pesetsky (1992, 1995). The condition is crucially used in the following sections when we attribute the limited distribution of null Cs in English and many other languages, in both finite and infinitive clausal complements, to a well-motivated parameter or well-known lexical idiosyncrasy on overt verb raising. 2.2.1 A Condition on Null Affixes Myers (1984) claims that the lexical operation that has been traditionally called 'zero derivation' is actually the attachment of a category-changing inflection that is phonologically null. Observing that no overt inflection appears inside a derivational suffix, he suggests the following generalization, which covers both the null inflection and the overt inflection: (3) No inflection, whether overt or zero, can appear inside a derivational suffix. The generalization in (3) covers the ill-formedness of the words in (4a-b). (4) a. *climbedable, *pigsish, *ranner,... (cf. climbable, piggish, runner) b. *humanal, *humanful, *humanous, *humanship,... (cf. humanness, humanity) The words in (4b) are ill-formed since their word-internal structures are either [[[humanA]- N]ful/shipN] or [[[humanA]- N]-al/-ousAl, where the 'zeroderived' word appears inside a derivational suffix, just like the words in (4a), where overt inflections appear inside derivational suffixes. On the basis of this generalization, let us formulate the condition in (5) (word order among heads is irrelevant in (5); only the depth of containment is relevant).2 (5) *[[X+Y]+Z], where X is any element, Y is an inflectional affix, whether overt or null, and Z is a derivational affix. We suppose that condition (5) applies not in the lexicon but to the output of Morphology, the module that we assume to exist in the PF component after Spell-


23

Out (cf. chapter 1; cf. also Halle and Marantz 1993, Nishiyama 1998). This means that 'lexically zero-derived' words and words to which a null morpheme has affixed in the overt syntax are both constrained by (5). For now, I have no decisive answer to the question of why Morphology imposes such a condition or the question of whether condition (5) could be reduced to a more general principle of grammar. I leave the issue open for future research.3 2.2.2 Null Complementizers as Null Affixes As occasionally discussed in Kayne (1981), Stowell (1981), and Pesetsky (1992, 1995), among others, the finite clausal complement to a (derived) nominal cannot be headed by the null C: (7) the statement *(that) John is guilty (=(lc)) Pesetsky's idea is that the obligatoriness of that in (7) is accommodated in the same way as Myers's Generalization if the null C is assumed to be affixal, and hence a word to which it is attached resists further suffixation for the same reasons as the other zero-derived words. The affixal property of the null C is independently motivated by the illformedness of (8). (8) [*(That) Louise was angry at me] came as no surprise. (Stowell 1981:396) Pesetsky argues that the overt C is required here because the null C must attach to the main verb due to its affixal property, but it cannot do so unless the prohibition against lowering is violated.4 Pesetsky proposes that the null C is affixal and must attach to the selecting head. However, the latter proposal is too specific, as I show later. Hence, let us suppose that the null C must attach to the closest overt element that c-commands it, whatever it is, in overt syntax in order to be properly interpreted at Morphology.5 This means that for the null C that heads the clausal complement of a lexical category, its (potential) host is the lexical head. Suppose further, following Pesetsky, that a derived nominal is formed in the syntax by attaching a nominalizing suffix to a verb stem. Then, the obligatoriness of that in (7) is accounted for in the following way. If the null C attaches to the verb stem (state in (7)) and the nominalizing suffix attaches to the V+C complex, we obtain the structure [[V+ c]+ment], which violates condition (5), under the assumption that the null C is an inflectional affix. The assumption that the null C is an inflectional affix is not unreasonable, because it has been observed for some languages that overt Comp sometimes/always shows a morphological agreement with the clausemate subject. Rizzi (1990) assumes that the null C in English has one common property with

24


the overt Cs in those languages in that it has an abstract Agr feature. On the basis of this assumption, Rizzi accounts for the fact that the so-called Comp-trace effect is absent in the presence of overt morphological agreement in French and in the presence of the null C in English. More specifically, Rizzi proposes that the null C in English is engaged in an abstract agreement relation with the clausemate subject when the latter undergoes overt wh-movement. If this assumption is valid, the null C may plausibly be included in the set of inflectional affixes.

2.2.3

Some Notes on Overt Complementizers

As a matter of methodology, the postulation of a null element in a theory is best motivated on the ground that there is a morphologically realized counterpart of it. Thus, Pesetsky's claim that a language, for example, English has a null causative suffix that attaches to an inchoative verb to form a transitive verb is plausible because in another language, such as Japanese, there is a class of overt causative suffixes that consistently attaches to a verb stem to form a transitive verb (cf. Nishiyama 1998 for a full demonstration of this point). On this methodological perspective, the affixal status of the null C becomes skeptical, since, as the anonymous OUP reviewer points out correctly, the existence of an overt affixal C seems to be rare or unattested: it is common to have C-light morphemes affixed to the LOWER verb, but not the higher one. If this is the case, it appears to detract from the plausibility of the basic assumption on which I will later build up my arguments. Since I have not prepared a conclusive answer to this objection, I simply leave it as a potential problem, simply assuming that the (invisible) overt incorporation of the null C is driven by some morphological property unique to it. More specifically, it could be assumed, following Rizzi (1990), that it is an inflectional (AGR) feature. This seems innocuous, since, in languages that have both the null and overt Cs, only the null C can license the extraction of the clausemate subject (Ogawa 1996b). Note, incidentally, that we have not excluded the possibility that there are phonetically realized Cs that are affixes. We can assume that the overt Cs in languages that do not have the so-called Doubly Filled Comp Filter instantiate the overt affixal Cs. The relevant languages include Celtic VSO languages (e.g., Irish, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic) and Austronesian VOS languages (e.g., Bahasa Indonesia, Tagalog, Malagasy): (9) Irish (a Celtic language): Goide a ndearnatu leis e? what Comp did you weith-it it 'What did you do with it?' (McCloskey 1990:228) (10) Bahasa Indonesia (an Austronesian language): Apa yang dibaca Ali? what Comp TT-read Ali 'What was read by Ali?'


25

To the best of my knowledge, these languages are typologically quite rare, compared with the pervasiveness of the languages in which the C that triggers overt movement is phonetically empty. Furthermore, the overt Cs in (9) and (10), even if they are affixes, do not move by themselves but attract another element to their Spec. We have no answer why they behave as they do. Given the existence of overt affixal Cs, however, one cannot a priori reject the possibility that there is a null C that is affixal. If the null C is affixal, and if its affixal property is not satisfied by the raised verb or an element that fills its Spec, then it would have to be satisfied by the head that selects it. In this case, the null C would have to be raised to the selecting head. I have claimed in this section that the absence of an overt C that incorporates into the selecting V does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the null C does not incorporate into it, either. Moreover, I have suggested that the existence of an overt affixal C is not precluded by our argument in this section. In fact, I argue in section 7 of this chapter that overt (visible) wh-movement is universally triggered by the affixal property of the interrogative C. 2.3

Null Complementizers in Finite Clausal Complements

2.3.1 Overt Verb Raising and Null Complementizers Now, with the condition on inflectional affixes (5) and the conclusion reached in the preceding subsection in mind, let us return to the contrast between English example (la) and French example (lb), repeated here as (l la) and (lib), respectively. (11) a. John believed (that) she was ill. b. Jean croyait *(que) elle etait malade. Another asymmetry between English and French is that the former does not allow overt raising of transitive verbs that take an NP complement, whereas the latter requires overt raising of all finite verbs to T (Emonds 1978, Pollock 1989):6 (12) a. b. (13) a. b.

Paul hardly speaks Italian, *Paul speaks hardly Italian. *Pierreapeineparlel'italien. (=(12a)) Pierre parle a peine 1'italien. (= (12b))

(Pollock 1989:378)

My claim is that the contrast between (11a) and (lib) is related to the contrast between (12) and (13). Let us continue to assume that the null C is an inflectional affix and that it must attach to the selecting head in the cases at hand. Let us also suppose, following Chomsky (1995:chapter 4), that every transitive verb is selected by the light verb v. Then, we can assign to (11a) and (lib) the following structures, respectively, when the C is null (order irrelevant):


26

(14b) violates condition (5) since the V+C complex is contained in v. But no such violation occurs in (14a), where the verb does not raise in overt syntax. Hence, we can derive the asymmetry between (1 la) and (11b) directly from condition (5) and the affixal property of the null C and an independently motivated parameter on verb raising.7 2.3.2

Tell-class Verbs and Suggest-class Verbs

One problematic aspect of my account of the English/French asymmetry is the fact that a certain subclass of verbs that takes both a Goal argument and a CP complement can license the null C in the CP. This class of verbs includes tell, convince, write, persuade, advise, and remind (see Stowell 1981; Nakajima 1996): (15) a b. c. d.

I told Robin (that) it was going to rain. I convinced Bill (that) John was not so bad. (Nakajima 1996:154) Mary wrote me (that) she was in Los Angeles, (ibid.: 159) Eric reminded the teacher ?(that) tigers are dangerous. (Stowell 1981:410)

If these verbs were involved in a Larsonian VP-shell structure like the following and the matrix verbs were moved overtly from the lower verb head to the upper one, then the null C would be precluded for the same reason as it is in French:

Note here that there is another class of verbs/adjectives that is similar to the one in (15) but cannot license the null C in their complement. This class of verbs/adjectives includes suggest to NP, important, write down, point out, seem to NP, and happen: (17) a. b. c. d.

I suggested to John *(that) he should leave early. It is important to John *(that) you are here. (Nakajima 1996:154) John wrote down *(that) Mary was there. (ibid.:158) It didn't seem to Mary *(that) John was very sick.8

The analysis in (16) is compatible with this class of verbs/adjectives. That overt verb raising in (16) is responsible for the obligatoriness of that in (17a-d) is suggested by the fact that the following sentences are well-formed without an overt C:


27

(18) a. Are you suggesting (that) I have betrayed you? b. It seems (that) he forgot his keys. Here, the lack of the Goal PP implies that neither the projection of V2 (which is only postulated to host the PP) nor the overt verb movement from V2 to V1 exists. Given that our account of the contrast between (17) and (18) is on the right track, I argue that the verbs are not raised in (15), either, and therefore the null C can affix to them without violating condition (5). In order to implement this idea, we have to clarify the position of the Goal NP and its syntactic relation to the verb. I now suggest that (15) involves a structure in which a verb selects PP headed by a null affix, that the head of the PP in turn selects CP,9 and that the derivation of the examples in (15) before Spell-Out proceeds as follows:

When the null C moves to the null P and the two are amalgamated as in (19a), the complex is morphologically reinterpreted as a single null inflectional affix, as in (19b).'10Suppose that this is a generally permitted morphological process that applies to any two or more null inflectional affixes that are amalgamated with each other. After the process applies, the single null inflectional affix moves to adjoin to V, deriving (19c), where we obtain [ P+c+V]. This structure does not violate condition (5). Hence, (15a-d) are ruled in. The structure in (19c) is strongly reminiscent of Pesetsky's (1992, 1995) analysis of the double object construction. He proposes a structure as in (20) for the ditransitive object construction. In (20), the ditransitive verb selects PP whose Spec is filled by the Goal NP and whose head is filled by the null affixal preposition G, which selects Theme NP as its complement:

In fact, the tell-class verbs are similar to the ditransitive verbs in that both take the Goal argument in the Spec of its complement. Note, also, a salient contrast between the ?tell-class verbs and the suggest-class verbs: while the latter can be passivized (or generated in the base) only with the expletive it in [Spec, T], the former can be passivized only with the Goal NP moving to the subject position, and the option of inserting the expletive to [Spec, T] is not available even if the Goal NP is preceded by a dummy Case-marker: (21) a. It {was suggested/was written down/was pointed out/seems/happens/ is important} to me that IP

28


b. *I {was suggested/was written down/was pointed out/seem/happen/ am important} that IP (22) a. *It was {told/persuaded/written/convinced/advised/reminded} (to) me that IP b. I was {told/persuaded/written/convinced/advised/reminded} that IP The contrast in (21) shows that the suggest-c\ass verbs do not assign Case (or role) to the Goal NP and that the NP receives an inherent Case in the PP that dominates it. On the other hand, the contrast in (22) shows that the tell-class verbs do assign Case to the Goal NP, and hence its absorption by the passive morpheme forces the NP to move to [Spec, T]. Now, the ditransitive verbs pattern with the tell-class verbs: (23) a. A lady was given the bouquet. b.*There was given (to) a lady a bouquet. The fact that the Goal NP in (19) cannot be accompanied by the overt preposition to is also comparable to the absence of to in the double object construction. Given these facts, it is reasonable to analyze the tell-class verbs in the same way as the ditransitive verbs." As far as the structural distinction between (16) and (19) is well-motivated, the fact that the tell-class verbs allow their CP argument to be headed by the null C is not problematic for us. Rather, the fact that the overt C is required in the complement of the suggest-class verbs with a PP argument corroborates my claim that there is a correlation between overt verb raising and the impossibility of the null C (but see note 8).12

2.4 Further Cross-linguistic Data This section demonstrates that our treatment of the facts in English and French (= (1) and (17)) is corroborated by the facts in many other (typologically unrelated) languages. 2.4.1 Chinese In Chinese, overt verb raising is impossible (Cheng 1991:13). Thus, the VPadverb can occur preverbally, but not between the verb and a direct object: (24) a. *Zhangsan bu changchang Lisi. Zhangsan scold often Lisi 'Zhangsan often scolded Lisi.' b. Zhangsan changchang bu Lisi.


29

As expected, the null C is possible (in fact, required) in Chinese: (25) Akiu renwei Lisi hui xuan ta-ziji. Akiu think Lisi will elect him-self 'Akiu thinks Lisi will elect himself.' On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, in every language in which complementizer must be overtly realized in an indicative nonfactive complement clause, the verb that selects it undergoes obligatory overt raising. In the following eight subsections, I demonstrate this point by focusing on eight typologically unrelated language families and the historical development of English. 2.4.2 Romance Languages Romance languages include French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Romanian, among others. All these languages prohibit the null C to occur in the indicative nonfactive complement of a verb, as shown in (26a-e). (26a-d) are taken from Webelhuth (1989:234-235), and (26e) from Grosu and Horvath (1984): (26) a. Pierre croit *(qu') elle sortira demain. (French) Peter believe that she will-leave tomorrow 'Peter believes (that) she will leave tomorrow.' b. Pietro pensa *(che) lei partira domani. (= (26a)) (Italian) c. O Pedro acredita *(que) ela vai sair amanha. (= (26a)) (Portuguese) d. Pedro cree *(che) ella saldra manana. (= (26a)) (Spanish)13 e. Maria nu crede *(ca) toti baietii sunt acolo. (Romanian) Maria not think that all boys-the are there 'Maria does not think that all the boys are there.' Then, it is predicted that all these languages should have obligatory overt raising of the verb that selects the complement clause, whether finite or nonfinite. I return to the raising of nonfinite verbs in French in section 9.1. The fact that Italian requires obligatory overt verb raising is shown in these examples (cf. Belletti 1990 and Roberts 1997 for other data and discussion): (27) a. Gianni ha deciso di non tornare mai. Gianni has decided to not return ever 'Gianni decided not to come back ever.' b. *Gianni ha deciso di non mai tornare. (Roberts 1997:425) Given Belletti's (1990) claim that mai 'ever', as well as some other adverbs, occurs at the left-periphery of VP, the fact that the infinitive verb tornare 'return' in (27) (as well as every finite verb) must occur before the adverb indicates that it has been obligatorily raised out of VP.14 Since Portuguese manifests the same

30


word order pattern as the Italian example (27a), it should be another obligatory overt verb raising language. (28) is taken from Nash and Rouveret (1997:291): (28) Rui (*vivamente) agarrou (vivamente) o braco do irmao. Rui brusquely seized brusquely the arm of-the brother 'Rui brusquely seized the arm of the brother.' Consider next the following facts in Spanish, taken from Zagona (1988:176): (29) a. Ha leido Marta ese capitulo? has read Marta that chapter 'Has Marta read that chapter?' b. *Ha Marta leido ese capitulo? If we assume that the surface position of the subject indicates the left-periphery of vP (or IP, as Zagona argues without adopting the predicate-internal subject hypothesis), the fact that the main verb (even if infinitive) must occur to the left of the subject in Spanish indicates that it has been obligatorily raised out of the vP in this language.15 Since Romanian manifests the same word order pattern as the Spanish example (29a) (that is, Aux-V-Subj-Obj), we can conclude that the languages is also an obligatory overt verb raising language: (30) inainte de a-i fi trimis mama cartea,... before of a-him have sent mother the book,... 'before mother had sent him the book,... ' (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994:41) We have shown that none of the five Romance languages discussed — Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, and French — permits the null C in a finite nonfactive clausal complement, and that main verbs that select it, even if it is nonfinite, must undergo obligatory overt verb raising in these languages (see also section 9.1). This correlation between the obligatoriness of overt verb raising and the impossibility of the null C in a complement clause in these five Romance languages corroborates my claim that the distribution of the null C is constrained by the condition on inflectional affixes (5). Note here that while we have presented the generalization that if an overt C is required in a finite nonfactive complement clause, the verb that selects it is obligatorily raised overtly, the opposite is not necessarily true: we cannot say that if the matrix verb obligatorily raises overtly, its complement CP must be headed by an overt C. The crucial point is that there must be at least one (perhaps, exactly one) way to support the null affixal C in each syntactic configuration. Then, if there is a null C that can satisfy its affixal property without incorporating into the selecting verb, it should be permitted even in an obligatory overt verb raising language. One such situation arises when the finite/auxiliary verb in an embedded


31

clause can raise to C by the operation traditionally called Aux-to-Comp (Rizzi 1982). Consider first the following examples in Italian: (31) a. ?*Gianni essendi disposto ad aiutarci,... Gianni being ready to help u s , . . . 'Gianni being ready to help us,.. .' b. Essendo Gianni disposto ad aiutarci,... (Rizzi 1982:83) This contrast can be interpreted as showing that in a nonroot clause in Italian not headed by an overt C, the highest verb must be raised to C across the subject in [Spec, T] (or [Spec, v]). If this is the correct generalization, and if an overt C is not an affix in Italian, then it is predicted that in a complement clause, too, the C can be null if the Aux-to-Comp takes place. This prediction is borne out. In fact, Aux-to-Comp is incompatible with the overt C, as shown below: (32) Mi auguro (*che) abbia lui fornito tutte le indicazioni del caso. I hope that has-SUBJ he provided all the informations necessary 'I hope that he has provided all the necessary information.' (ibid.:85) The impossibility of an overt C can be attributed to the principle of Last Resort, if we assume that Aux-to-Comp takes place in order to check the V-feature of C and that the overt C in Italian does not have the feature (recall the discussion about (9) and (10)). The well-formedness of the counterpart of (32) in Portuguese can be given the same explanation, given that auxiliaries in this language can raise to C: (33) Penso terem eles comprado o livro. think-Isg have-3pl they bought the book 'I think they have bought the book.' (Amber 1994:1) The raising of the clausemate finite verb/auxiliary is not the only way to support the null affixal C. If it were, the following contrast, cited from Kayne (1994:156), would fall out of our approach. More specifically, in the absence of Aux-to-Comp, the null C should be allowed in neither (34a) nor (34b) (Kayne notes that the same contrast between nonpronominal subjects and pronominal clitics holds in Corsican, too):16 (34) a. ?*Non sapevo Giorgio fosse malato. not know-Isg Giorgio were-SUBJ sick 'I do not know Giorgio were sick.' b. Non sapevo tu fossi malato. not know-Isg you were-SUBJ sick 'I do not know you were sick.' A well-known difference between pronominals and full NPs in Romance

32


languages is that pronominal objects must undergo cliticization to a higher inflectional head, whereas full NP objects cannot undergo the same operation. Given this, the contrast in (34) can be understood as follows: the pronominal clitic moves and adjoins to the null C for its own sake, whereas the full NP cannot move in this context. If the cliticized pronoun can support the null C in the same way as the raised auxiliaries in (32) and (33), the obligatory overt raising of the matrix verb in (34b) does not induce a violation of condition (5).17 If this line of explanation is on the right track, the contrast in (34) corroborates our basic assumption that the null C is an inflectional affix that must be supported by the closest c-commanding overt element. It is also important to note here that the cliticization of the pronominal is subject to the principle of Greed, because if the Enlightened Self Interest were the correct formalization of the "Last Resort", the full NP should be able to move just in order to support the null C in an appropriate configuration, contrary to fact.18 This view seems compatible with additional facts to be examined later. 2.4.3 Germanic Languages Germanic languages (and their dialects) include German, Dutch, Frisian, West Flemish, Bavarian, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Yiddish. In this subsection, I show that the data in these languages support, or at least are compatible with, my view about the null C and my generalization on the correlation between overt verb raising and the possibility of the null C. For ease of exposition, let us divide Germanic languages into two classes in terms of the word order difference. On the one hand, German, Dutch, Frisian, Bavarian, and West Flemish belong to SOV languages whose VP are head-final (although CP is uniformly head-initial, and the value of the parameter for IP could vary among these languages). On the other hand, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Yiddish belong to SVO languages in which all projections, whether lexical or functional, are uniformly head-initial. 2.4.3.1 Germanic SOV Languages Let us first consider the partially head-final Germanic languages. It seems to hold unexceptionally that these languages do not permit the null C in a finite nonfactive clausal complement whose finite verb remains inside IP: (35) a. German (Webelhuth 1989:179): Peter sagte *(dass) Hans Maria gekiisst hat. Peter said that Hans Maria kissed had 'Peter said that Hans had kissed Maria.' b. Dutch (Weerman 1989:45): Jan besluit *(dat) hij morgen komt. Jan decides that he tomorrow comes 'John decides that he will come tomorrow.'


33

c. Frisian (deHaan and Weerman 1986:85): *Pyt woe sizze hy had my sjoen. Pyt wanted say he had me seen 'Pyt wanted to say he had seen me.' c'. Pyt woe sizze dat hy my sjoen hie. Pyt wanted say that he me seen had 'Pyt wanted to say that he had seen me.' d. West Flemish (cf. Law 1991:127): Marie peinst *(da) Jan den vent gezien heet. Marie thinks that Jan the man seen has 'Marie thinks that Jan has seen the man.' In fact, in Frisian, Bavarian, West Flemish, and some dialects of Dutch, the overt C must agree with the following pronominal subject at least in person (selectively to first and second persons in Bavarian) and number and, sometimes, even in gender (e.g., West Flemish): (36) a. Frisian (Law 1991:222): Hy tinkt datst do jun komst. he thinks that-2sg you tonight come-2sg 'He thinks that you are coming tonight.' b. Bavarian (ibid.:222): I woass dassts ihr Spitzbuam seits I know that-2pl you rascals are 'I know that you are rascals.' c. West Flemish (ibid.: 129): K weten da-se zie goat weggoan. I know that-3sg.fem she go leave 'I know that she is going to leave.' As Law (1991:222, note 10) suggests, 'the property that German, Dutch, West Flemish, and Frisian share would be that an empty C position must be filled by finite verb.' Since CP is head-initial in these languages, the V-to-C movement in an embedded clause must result in the placement of a finite verb in sentencemedial position: (37) a. German (van Kemenade 1987:47): Er sagte, er habe ihn gesehen. he said he had-SUBJ him seen 'He said that he had seen him.' b. Dutch (Hulk and van Kemenade 1993:183): Hij zei hij heeft hem gisteren gezien. he said he has him yesterday seen 'He said that he had seen him yesterday.'

34

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections c. Frisian (deHaan and Weerman 1986:85): Pyt sei hy hie my sjoen. Pyt said he had me seen 'Pyt said he had seen me.'

Finally, as in Italian, the V-to-C is incompatible with an overt C in Dutch: (38)

Dutch (Hulk and van Kemenade 1993:183): *Hij zei dat heeft hij hem gisteren gezien. he said that has he him yesterday seen 'He said that he had seen him yesterday.'

Law (1991:222) attributes these facts to some constraint K that has the effect that the finite verb moves to C when there is not a complementizer. However, he has provided no principled explanation for them. On the other hand, we can attribute the obligatoriness of an overt C in (35) and the obligatoriness of the Vto-C in (37a-c) to the affixal nature of the null C, condition (5), and two independently fixed values of parameters as to overt raising (i.e., a parameter that concerns the matrix main verbs and the one that concerns the embedded finite verbs, respectively). Note that the languages in question are all matrix V2 languages. Thus, the finite verbs in the matrix clause must raise to C (probably through v and Infl) in overt syntax: (39) a. German (Muller 1996:362): Ein Buch hat Antje uber die Liebe gelesen. a book has Antje about the love read 'Antje read a book about love.' b. Dutch (Zwart 1994:288): Gekust denk ik niet dat Jan Marie heeft. kissed think I not that Jan Marie has 'I don't think Jan KISSED Marie.' c. Frisian (deHaan and Weerman 1986:78): My sjocht hy oan. me sees he at 'He looks at me.' Then, if the null C in the complement clause were adjoined to the matrix verb, condition (5) would be violated, since the complex word [[< > c +V]+v] would be formed. Therefore, the null C is permitted only if the finite verb is raised to C and supports it, which makes it unnecessary for it to raise to the selecting verb. The Germanic SOV languages differ from Italian and Portuguese in that Vto-C takes place in the matrix clause, as in (39), as well as in the embedded


35

clause, as in (40), and that it must co-occur with topicalization to [Spec, C]. The topic phrases can be an object NP or an adjunct phrase: (40) German (Muller 1996:377): a. Sie sagte, diese Buch habe Sie nie gelesen. she said this book has she never read 'She said that this book she has never read.' b. Dutch (Hulk and van Kemenade 1993:183): Hij zei gisteren heeft hij hem gezien. he said yesterday has he him seen 'He said that he had seen him yesterday.' The first difference between Romance and Germanic languages can be derived from a special nature of the matrix C in the former languages, to be discussed in section 7.3, and the second difference can be derived from the assumption that the null C in Germanic languages, unlike that in Romance languages, has a strong uninterpretable topic feature to be checked off in overt syntax. As for the licensing method of the null affixal C in an embedded clause, however, the two classes of language do not differ, since in both, the clausemate verb that is raised to the C supports it. A potential problem, as pointed out to me by Daiko Takahashi, which arises from my proposed account of the facts in (37) and (40), is that the embedded V2 clauses cannot occur in noncomplement positions: (41) a. German (Webelhuth 1989): *[Hans ist krank] ist offensichtlich. Hans is sick is obvious 'That Hans is sick is obvious.' b. *[Hans ist krank] hat Peter gewusst. Hans is sick has Peter known That Hans is sick, Peter has known.' If the affixal property of the null C in the subordinate clauses in (41a-b) is clauseinternally satisfied by the finite verb raised to C, the ill-formedness of these sentences cannot be due to the failure of the licensing of the null C. Nor can it be ascribed to a condition on feature attraction, with which we have accounted for the ill-formedness of sentences like (42a-b) (cf. note 4): (42) a. [*(That) Louise was angry at me] came as no surprise. b. [*(That) he has done that], I cannot believe. (Webelhuth 1989:180) Following the suggestion in note 4, suppose that if the head of the CP that is underlyingly at the complement of the unaccusative came in (42a) and believe in (42b) adjoins to the matrix V, the CP cannot undergo a movement, since the trace

36


of the C does not have a relevant feature to be attracted by any functional head (cf. also Chomsky (1995:304) for the immobility of traces themselves). Then, the derivations of (42a-b) will crash ultimately because an uninterpretable feature of T or Top remains unchecked. The same explanation cannot be extended to account for (41b), however, since the null C here is not moved out of the CP. In fact, it could be the case that the CP in (4la) is not moved from a complement position but base-generated in a subject position. If so, the condition on feature attraction is irrelevant here. In face of this problem, I adopt Webelhuth's (1989) suggestion (i) that the CP with an overt C is of a nominal category, whereas the CP with the clausemate verb raised to it is of a verbal category (i.e., the null C has a V-feature), (ii) that the movement of every CP leaves a trace of the category D, (iii) that a uniformity condition on chains requires that every member of a chain be of the same category, and (iv) that when the CP is headed by the raised verb, its movement creates the chain (VP, tDP), which violates the uniformity condition on chains, whence ruled out. Given that (41a-b) are ruled out on these independent grounds, their ill-formedness does not undermine my proposal that the null C can satisfy its affixal property by the clausemate verb. Another complication we cannot ignore when discussing the Germanic facts is that even in a single language, the V-to-C raising is not always possible in the complement clause. We have seen that Frisian, like the other Germanic SOV languages, allows the null C in the embedded V2 context, as in (43): (43) Pyt sei hy hie my sjoen. Pyt said he had me seen 'Pyt said he had seen me.' One peculiarity of this language (dialect), however, is that the V-to-C movement is not always possible in the indicative complement of a verb. As we have already illustrated, (35c), repeated here as (44), is ill-formed with the same configuration as (43) in relevant respects. The only difference is that the matrix verb in (43) is sei 'said', whereas the one in (44) is woe sizze 'wanted to say': (44) *pyt woe sizze hy had my sjoen. Pyt wanted say he had me seen 'Pyt wanted to say he had seen me.' As deHaan and Weerman (1986) point out, these two types of verbs differ in another respect. The former type of verbs, including sei 'said' and leau 'believe', take a complement in which the verb can move to a functional category lower than C even in the presence of an overt C, whereas the latter type of verbs, including woe sizze 'wanted to say' and leau net 'believe not', do not move to that functional category (ibid.:84):


37

(45) a. Pyt sei dat hy my sjoen hie. Pyt said that he me seen had 'Pyt said that he had seen me.' b. Pyt sei dat hy hie my sjoen. (46) a. Pyt woe sizze dat hy my sjoen hie. Pyt wanted say that he me seen had 'Pyt wanted to say that he had seen me.' b. *Pyt woe sizze dat hy hie my sjoen. The data in (43) to (46) can be interpreted as showing that the embedded verbs can raise to C only if they can make an embedded V2 configuration in the presence of an overt C. Suppose, following Diesing (1990), that the category involved with the embedded V2 configuration is Infl. Then, the generalization to be explained can be stated as follows: (47) Only the verbs that can raise to Infl can raise further to C. (Incidentally, the V-to-I movement plus the movement of the subject NP to [Spec, I] results in the embedded V2 configuration in Frisian because the IP in this language is head-initial.) (47) could be understood as a descriptive generalization that holds water only in Frisian. However, (47) can arguably be reduced to a principle of UG: the Head Movement Constraint. If this is the case, it should holds in the other Germanic SOV languages, such as German and Dutch, as well. Now that these languages overtly manifest V-to-C movement, they should also manifest some evidence for the overt V-to-I movement in one way or another. With this in mind, consider the following examples in Dutch, taken from Roberts (1997:449) (an observation originally made by Evers 1975): (48) a. dat Anna misschien [haar breeder een CD geven] w i l . . . that Anna perhaps her brother a CD give will 'that Anna will perhaps give her brother a CD' b. dat Anna misschien [haar broeder een CD t] wil geven that Anna perhaps her brother a CD will give The interchangeability of main and auxiliary verbs in (48) shows that in either (48a) or (48b), the main verb is raised and adjoined to the auxiliary verb. (Alternatively, the verb raising has taken place in both examples. In this case, the main verb can adjoin either to the left or to the right of the auxiliary.) In short, Dutch is nondistinct from Frisian in that it has overt V-to-I movement. Given that both Infl and C have a V-feature and that V-to-C is driven by the (strong) uninterpretable V-feature of C, the generalization in (47) can be explained by the Minimal Link Condition. The distinction between verbs that can

38


raise to Infl and those that do not may have to be, in any event, described as a matter of lexical idiosyncrasy. 2.4.3.2 Germanic SVO Languages Now, let us shift our attention to Germanic SVO languages. The Germanic SVO languages include Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Yiddish, in addition to English, which we have already discussed. Postponing the discussion of Icelandic and Yiddish until the next subsection, let us first consider Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian in this subsection. These languages apparently differ from the Germanic SOV languages other than Frisian in at least two respects. First, V2 appears to be obligatory in an embedded clause even in the presence of an overt C. In fact, the overt C is obligatory when a non-subject is topicalized (the following examples are taken from Reinholtz 1990:461):19 (49) a. Karen siger *(at) den bog har Peter ikke baest. Karen says that that book has Peter not read 'Karen says that that books, Peter didn't read.' b. Erik sa *(att) den boken kopte han inte. Erik said that that book bought he not 'Erik said that that book, he had not bought.' c. Vi vet *(at) disse b kene leste han aldri. we know that these books read he never 'We know that these books, he never read.'

(Danish) (Swedish) (Norwegian)

Judging from the presence of an overt C in these examples, one might be forced to assume that the topic phrases here are in [Spec, I], with the finite verb being raised to Infl. This amounts to the assimilation of the paradigm in these languages with the one in Frisian. However, putting aside the apparent V-to-I for the moment, the obligatoriness of an overt C in the presence of embedded topicalization is also found in English. The following examples are cited from Watanabe (1993:159), who credits the observation to Rochemont (1989): (50) a. John said (that) Mary should have read this book, b. John said *(that) this book, Mary should have read. Then, whatever explanation is given to the fact in (50b) will be applied to (49a-c), as well. In fact, given Watanabe's (1993) claim that the embedded topicalization involves a recursive CP structure, the fact in (49) is also compatible with the claim that overt V-to-I does not take place, since what is implemented in (49a-c), can be overt V-to-C (I will show shortly that this is indeed the case). Hence, we will ignore these facts in what follows. The second difference between the Mainland Scandinavian languages (MSLs) and the Germanic SOV languages, which is a real difference between


39

them, is the fact that without embedded topicalization, the null C is permitted in a complement clause even without the V-to-C in an embedded clause. (The examples in (51) are also taken from Reinholtz 1990:461): (51) a. Karen siger (at) Peter ikke har laest den bog. Karen says that Peter not has read that book 'Karen says that Peter didn't read that book.' b. Erik sa (att) han inte kopte den boken. Erik said that he not bought that book 'Erik said that he had not bought that book.' c. Vi vet (at) han aldri leste disse b < > kene. we know that he never read these books 'We know that he never read these books.'

(Danish)

(Swedish)

(Norwegian)

Note also that the matrix verbs in these languages do not raise to Infl across a negative word:20 (52) a. Danish (Vikner 1995:46): Mon b rnene ikke har set filmen? I-wonder children-the not have seen film-the 'I wonder if the children have not seen the film?' b. *Mon b rnene har ikke set filmen? (53) a. Swedish (ibid.:46): Kanske Lena inte kopte en ny bok igar. Maybe Lena not bought a new book yesterday 'Maybe, Lena did not buy a new book yesterday.' b. *Kanske Lena kopte inte en ny bok igar. (54) Norwegian (Watanabe 1996:197): Vi vet at Jens ikke skj nte dette sp rsmalet. we know that Jens not understand this question 'We know that Jens did not understand this question.' I could not find a matrix clause counterpart of (54) in Norwegian, though Roberts (1993) points out, in the context of demonstrating the correlation between overt verb raising and overt distinct morphological plural marking, that 'the Norwegian dialect of Hallingdalen . . . has plural forms (in the present tense) that are identical to the infinitive and lacks V-to-Agr' (ibid.:265). If he is correct in correlating the absence of V-raising with the absence of overt distinct morphological plural marking, there should be no V-raising in the matrix clause in (54), either, since the morphological inflection on verbs does not differ in the matrix and embedded clauses in Norwegian. If the matrix main verb does not raise, the null C in a complement clause can adjoin to it, and it is licensed in the same way as in English. As in the Germanic SOV languages, in the context of the matrix

40


topicalization, the finite verbs in these languages must be located in a clausesecond position: (55) a. Danish (Vikner 1995:47): Kaffe har Peter ofte drukket om morgenen. coffee has Peter often drunk in morning-the 'Peter often drunk coffee in the morning.' b. Swedish (ibid.: 104): Denna boken har ty varr Johan inte last, this book has unfortunately Johan not read 'Unfortunately, Johan has not read this book.' c. Norwegian (Watanabe 1996:197; cited from Taraldsen 1985:9): Jens skj nte ikke dette sp rsmalet. Jens understand not this question 'Jens did not understand this question.' The only difference between (52a) and (53a) on the one hand and (55a-b) on the other, Vikner (1995) argues, is that the C-head remains empty in the latter before a finite verb raises to it, whereas in the former it is filled by an overt adverbial element (mon 'I-wonder' in (52a) and kanske 'maybe' in (52b)). That these elements fill the C-head is independently shown by the fact that they occur in the position where a raised finite verb otherwise fills: (56) a. Danish (Vikner 1995:45): Hvilken film mon b rnene har set? which film I-wonder children-the have seen 'I wonder which film the children have seen.' b. Swedish (ibid.:45): Igar kanske Lena kopte en ny bok. yesterday maybe Lena bought a new book 'It may be that yesterday Lena bought a new book.' Then, it must be concluded that the finite verbs in (55) overtly occupy the C-head. Should this fact be interpreted as showing that the matrix finite verbs in MSLs must be RAISED to C overtly? If so, the null C in (51) would not be able to adjoin to the selecting verb without violating condition (5). Thus, we have apparently come back to the starting point: why is the null C possible in MSLs? The apparent problem lies in the fact that in these languages no verbs can raise to Infl overtly, though the matrix finite verbs must be located in C. This situation is in conflict with our generalization in (47) presented for German, Dutch, and Frisian, which is repeated here as (57): (57) Only the verbs that can raise to Infl overtly can also raise to C overtly.


41

We have assumed that it holds universally and suggested the possibility that it is derived from the Head Movement Constraint or the Minimal Link Condition. If this is the case, the matrix V2 phenomena in MSLs cannot be analyzed as movement of the verb to C. Thus, I propose that the finite verb is base-generated in a position adjoined to the null C and somehow controls the empty verb in the head of VP, in the same way as the matrix subject DP controls PRO in a controlled infinitive complement. Along these lines, let us schematize the underlying structure of (51) as in (58), where all the heads C, I, v and V (in VP) are phonetically vacuous:21

In (58), since the null C in the embedded clause must affix to some overt element, it raises up until it finds one. In conformity with the Strict Cycle Condition, it first adjoins to the selecting V; since the V is null, the V+C complex further raises to v; after that, head-movements apply successive cyclically, and we finally obtain the following complex word:

If nothing else happened any more, (59) violates condition (5). However, recall my suggestion in section 3.2 (owed to Daiko Takahashi) that at every point where two null affixal heads are amalgamated to form a complex word, it is morphologically reanalyzed as a single affix. On the basis of this suggestion, we have accounted for the behavior of the tell-class verbs in English in relation to the null C. Now, let us apply the suggestion to the case at hand. Then, the correct derivation of (51) proceeds step by step, as follows:

As a result of the local applications of affix reanalysis, we obtain the complex word in (61), which does not violate condition (5) since it is in all relevant respects nondistinct from (62) in that a single null affix is adjoined by an overt head as in the Germanic V2 configuration:

42


Hence, the MSLs allow the null C in a complement clause even if the matrix verbs occur in a V2 configuration. This contrasts with the fact that condition (5) is violated in (63), which illustrates a word-internal structure that would be derived if the null affixal C were adjoined to the selecting V in Romance languages:

In (63), the two null elements C and v cannot be reanalyzed as a single affix c+v , since there is no stage of derivation at which C is directly adjoined to v. Before closing this subsection, we have to emphasize three points in relation to the base-generation of the finite verb in C. First, note that the main verbs in Romance languages cannot be base-generated in an Io-adjoined position (and control an empty verb in VP), in the same way as those in the Germanic SVO languages can be base-generated in an C°-adjoined position. If they could, the null Cs in Romance languages could satisfy its affixal property without violating condition (5), and hence the contrast between these two types of languages would be left unexplained. Presumably, the ability to base-generate an overt V in an C°adjoined position should be related to a special (universal) property of the functional category C, which cannot be generalized to another functional category (cf. Rizzi's (1990) proposal that certain adjunct wh-phrases can be base-generated in [Spec, C]; it might be related to an operator-like property of the finite verbs in MSLs; cf. Pollock 1989). Second, note that the overt Vs cannot base-generate in a position adjoined to the embedded C°. If they could, we would lose our account of the ill-formedness of the Frisian examples (44) and (46b), repeated here as (64a-b): (64) a. *Pyt woe sizze hy had my sjoen. Pyt wanted say he had me seen 'Pyt wanted to say he had seen me.' b. *Pyt woe sizze dat hy hie my sjoen. Pyt wanted say that he had me seen 'Pyt wanted to say that he had seen me.' We have argued that the finite verb in (64a) cannot move to C in the complement of woe sizze 'wanted to say' because, as shown by the ill-formedness of (64b), it cannot raise to Infl, and Head Movement Constraint (HMC) prevents verbs that cannot raise to Infl from raising to C. However, if a finite verb could be basegenerated in the embedded C, we would not rule out (64a) by the constraint. However, it is not implausible to assume that the base-generation of an overt V in an C°-adjoined position is a root phenomenon, because the C head in an


43

embedded clause must meet the selectional requirement of the selecting verb. If neither movement to C nor base-generation in C is available, there is no way to locate the finite verb in the embedded C position in (64a).22 Then, the null C must adjoin to the matrix verb that raises to the matrix C, and a violation of condition (5) is inevitable. Third, we have to assume that the finite verb cannot be base-generated in the matrix C if it can move to this position. Otherwise, we would lose our account of (64a). The reason for this is that if the matrix finite verb in (64a) were basegenerated in the matrix C, no difference would occur between the Germanic SOV and SVO languages with respect to the way the null C satisfies its affixal property. Therefore, another necessary qualification for the base-generation of the finite verb in C will be that it must satisfy some sort of the Last Resort Condition: if the finite verb can move to Infl, it must move to C successive cyclically (trivially, if it need not move to C, it cannot be base-generated there, either). This restriction is not implausible, either, since a similar constraint is found elsewhere in the grammar. Consider the following contrast in English: (65) a. Which book did you read (*it)? b. Which book did you meet the man who wrote *(it)? In (65a) the wh-phrase which book can be moved to [Spec, C], and in such a case it is impossible to base-generate it in [Spec, C] and use the resumptive pronoun strategy. On the other hand, the strategy must be used when movement is unavailable as in (65b), where there intervenes a Complex NP between the sentence-initial wh-phrase and the position at which it is interpreted. Recall here that in the Germanic SOV languages, the main verbs can raise to Infl (see (48)). Therefore, they must satisfy the V2 requirement in CP by movement rather than base-generation. 2.4.3.3 Icelandic and Yiddish We have seen that the Germanic SVO languages other than Icelandic and Yiddish permit the null C in a complement clause because the verb selecting it does not raise (to T) overtly. Icelandic and Yiddish also belong to the Germanic SVO languages as far as they are SVO. However, they differ from the others in that they force the embedded V2 in the presence of an overt C: (66) Icelandic (Vikner 1995:68): a. ... a3 Mariu hefurHelgi aldrei kysst. that Maria-Ace has Helgi-Nom never kissed '... that Maria, Heig have never kissed.' b.*... a Helgi aldrei hefur kysst Mariu. that Helgi-Nom never have kissed Maria-Acc '... that Heigi have never kissed Maria.'

44


(67) Yiddish (ibid.:68): a. ... az morgn vet dos tingl oyfn veg zen a kats. that tomorrow will the boy on-the way see a cat '... that the boy will see a cat on the way tomorrow.' b.*... az dos yingl oyfn veg vet zen a kats. that the boy on-the way will see a cat '... that the boy will see a cat on the way.' Icelandic and Yiddish differ from the other Germanic SVO languages in another respect: these two languages do not (perfectly) allow the null C in an indicative nonfactive complement clause even in the presence of a finite verb or auxiliary in the clause-second position, as shown below (% indicates that there is some dialectal variation with respect to C-drop; see Webelhuth 1992:84, Thrainsson 1979:214, and references therein): (68) a. %Jon segir Olafur hafi se Egil. (Icelandic) Jon says Olaf has seen Egil (Webelhuth 1992:84) 'Jon says Olaf has seen Egil.' b. Vos hot er hit gevolt *(az) mir zoln leyenen? (Yiddish) what has he not wanted that we should read (Diesing 1990:71-72) 'What has he not wanted us to read?' The evaluation of the status of '%' in the Icelandic example (68a) may be somewhat important, though, given the existence of some speakers that judge this sentence as unacceptable, it seems possible to make an idealization that the null C is essentially impossible in this language.23 As for Yiddish, there is no doubt that the null C is impossible, as shown in (68b). Since the null C is impossible in Icelandic and Yiddish, it is predicted that these two languages should have obligatory overt raising of finite verbs to T. This prediction is indeed borne out: these languages show obligatory overt movement of the main verbs to I in both main and embedded clauses: (69) Icelandic: a. Annie heimsaekir aldrei Island. Annie visits never Iceland 'Annie never visits Iceland.' (Thrainsson 1984:251) b. Hann veit ad kannski las Jon aldrei bokina. he knows that maybe read Jon never book-the 'He knows that maybe Jon never read the book.' (Vikner 1995:91) (70) Yiddish: a. Ikh veys nit vemen zi hot gezen zuntik. I know not whom she has seen Sunday 'I don't know whom she has seen on Sunday.' (Diesing 1990:63)


45

b. ... az haynt heybn di kinder in emesn on zeyer heymarbet. that today start the children in truth on their homework '... that the children in truth start on their homework today.' (Vikner 1995:95) Since V-to-I is obligatory in an embedded clause, it should be obligatory in the matrix clause, as well (even if the effect is obscured by the presence of the overt V-to-C). Therefore, these languages confirm our generalization on the correlation between the (im)possibility of the null C and verb raising. The well-formedness of (7la) shows that the auxiliary in Yiddish can move to C without embedded topicalization, while the ill-formedness of (71b) shows that, as in Italian, the Aux-to-Comp in an embedded clause is blocked (only) in the presence of an overt C: (71) a. Vos hot er nitgevolt zoln mir leyenen? what has he not wanted should we read 'What has he not wanted us to read?' b. *Vos hot er nit gevolt az zoln mir leyenen? (Diesing 1990:71-72) These facts are also compatible with our theory, since only the null C must be supported by the clausemate verb that is raised to C. Note, however, that here arises another difference between Yiddish and Icelandic on the one hand and the Germanic SOV languages on the other: the former two languages should not allow the co-occurrence of the topicalization of a non-wh subject to [Spec, C] and the V-to-C in an embedded clause. Otherwise, (68a-b) should be perfectly ruled in in the absence of the overt C. This typological difference has to be left unexplained at this point. 2.4.3.4 From Old English to Modem English We have made a synchronic survey of Germanic languages to show that they can be divided into two classes in terms of the (im)possibility of the null C and the presence/absence of overt verb raising and that the distribution of the null C in these languages has so far been perfectly compatible with the hypothesis we have built upon the English and French data. A complication was raised by the matrix V2 in MSLs, though it has been got around by proposing the control of the null V by the overt V base-generated in the root C°. Among the dichotomized classes, the first class, including German, Dutch, Frisian, Bavarian, and West Flemish (Germanic SOV languages), shares the following observable properties: (i) the finite verb in the matrix clause obligatorily occurs in the null C-head position overtly, with a topic phrase in [Spec, C]; (ii) the nonfinite verb can raise to T;24 and (iii) the null C is impossible in a complement clause unless the clausemate verb raises to C, with a topic phrase in [Spec, C]. Icelandic and Yiddish also essentially belong to this class,

46


except that (ii) is replaced by (iv): (iv) the finite verbs in an embedded clause with an overt C (as well as in the matrix clause) obligatorily raise to T overtly. The second class, instantiated by Danish, Swedish, Norwegian (these are MSLs), and Modern English, has the following observable properties: (i) neither the finite verbs nor the main verbs move out of VP in either the matrix or an embedded clause (a copy of the finite verb obligatorily occurs in the root C overtly in the MSLs); and (ii) the null C is possible in a complement clause even if the verb in an embedded clause does not raise to C. Strictly speaking, we have observed that there are at least six (rather than two) types of languages, as summarized here (the statement in parentheses, i.e., "(obligatory)", means that while the presence of V-to-I is blurred by the further movement of V to C, it is probably true in view of the obligatoriness/possibility of V-to-I in an embedded context that does not involve V-to-C): (72) Dutch Yiddish a. V-to-C obligatory obligatory (in the matrix clause) b. V-to-I (obligatory) (obligatory) (in the matrix clause) c. V-to-C ok ok (in the embedded clause) d. V-to-I ok obligatory (in the embedded clause) e. nullC ok iff V-to-C takes place (in the embedded clause)

Icelandic obligatory

French *

Danish English obligatory *

(obligatory) obligatory *

*

*

*

*

*

obligatory

obligatory

*

*

%

*

ok

ok

Although the picture in (72) seems rather complex, it is not: our generalization, which now covers these six types, can be formally stated as follows: (73) If the null C is possible in a nonfactive finite complement clause, either (a) or (b) or (c) is observed: a. the verb that selects it always remains in situ (as in English);25 b. the matrix verb that selects it remains in situ unless it is 'raised' up to C in order to satisfy the V2 requirement in the matrix clause (as in Danish); c. a clausemate verb is raised and adjoined to the null C (as in German). We have explained this generalization by the universal affixal nature of the null C and morphological condition (5), although an apparently tricky analysis of the V2 phenomenon given to the facts in the MSLs remains to be improved. As an anonymous OUP reviewer points out to me, our generalization will be either strongly confirmed or falsified by the examination of various stages of English between Old English and Modern English, since it is known that there was a change in verb raising to I/C between Old English and Modern English. The prediction we make is that Old English did not allow the null C in an indicative nonfactive complement clause, but the null C became possible after V-


47

to-I raising disappeared and a discernible auxiliary system was established in the second half of the seventeenth century. If this prediction is borne out, our theory will receive the strongest confirmation. This subsection is devoted to the examination of this prediction, though I first confess that a decisive conclusion has not been reached yet, because of the unavailability of ungrammatical data in the texts that are written in a currently unused language, and because of the lack of linguists who have focused on the Cdrop in OE (but for a general discussion of Old English and/or the historical development of English, readers are referred to Bean 1983, van Kemenade 1987, 1997, Kroch and Taylor 1997, Lightfoot 1979, 1991, Mitchell 1985, Roberts 1993, Traugott 1972, Visser 1963-73, and references therein). With these qualifications in mind, I will demonstrate all I can say for now about the possibility of the null C in Old English, Modern English, and some stages of English between them. Before that, however, let us first point out the more deeply investigated facts about the parametric change in V-raising in the history of English. Note first that Old English (OE: pre-1066), Middle English (ME: 1066-1520), and Early Modern English (ENE: 1520-1650) all had the overt raising of nonauxiliary verbs that is almost completely lost in Modern English (NE: English from the second half of the seventeenth century on): (74) a. Maran cy e habba englas to God gonne men. (OE) more affinity have angels to God than men (Roberts 1993:327) 'Agnels have more affinity to God than men.' b. Se ye not how his herte is endurid ...? (ME) see you not how his heart hardened (1407, published in 1530: Anon., The Examination of Master William Thorpe, 44; cited from Roberts 1993:239, who credits citation to Gray 1985:13) c. itservethnot (ENE) 'it doesn't serve (it is no use)' (1513: Anon, The Battke of Flodden, 1.46; cited from Roberts 1993:239, who credits citation to Gray 1985:9) In fact, OE was overwhelmingly V2 (analyzed as V-to-C) in the matrix clause, if not obligatorily, as in Dutch and German. Importantly, the V-to-C was impossible in an embedded clause headed by an overt C in OE, as in Dutch and German. Lightfoot (1991) demonstrates this point on the basis of the fact that OE verbs in a clause-second position had prefixes that could occur in a separate position in the matrix clause, though in subordinate clauses these particles generally appear prefixed to the verb in final position:26 (75) a. pa sticode him mon pa eagon ut. (Orosius 168.4) then stuck him someone the eyes out

48

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections b. .. . paet hie mid paem paet folc ut aloccoden. that they with that the people out entice (Orosius 222.3, cited from Lightfoot 1991:61)

This might lead us to assimilate OE with German and Dutch in that it is underlyingly an SOV language with the matrix V2 phenomenon. Unlike German and Dutch, however, "[OE had] a significant number of embedded clauses with the so-called normal order of subject-verb-object" (Lightfoot 1991:59), suggesting that IP was basically head-final but could be head-initial in OE,27 and that V-to-I was obligatory in an embedded clause. In this respect, OE also differs from languages like Danish. This implies that the V-to-C in the matrix clause is a case of movement rather than the base-generation of the V in C (recall our discussion in the previous subsection).28 In early and mid ME, the strong tendency of V2 in the matrix clause seems to have been retained:29 (76) is gaere for pe king Stephne ofer sae to Normandi. this year went the king Stephen over sea to Normandy 'This year King Stephen went over sea to Normandy.' (1037: Chron. 263.24, cited from Traugott 1972:135)

(early ME)

V2 began to decline, however, in the middle of the fourteenth century (van Kemenade 1997:348), and it was completely lost in the fifteenth century (Roberts 1993:326). Consequently, not only a pronominal subject but also a nonpronominal subject, when it was not a topic, came to occur before the finite verb and after a sentence-initial topicalized non-subject. This was not the case in OE and early ME, in which a nonpronominal subject had to follow the verb to keep the V2 configuration: (77) a. And by pis same skyle hope and sorwe schulle juden us and by this same skill hope and sorrow shall judge us (late ME) b. for more joyge pei myhte not haue for more joy they could not have (The Wyccliffite sermons.372.97; cited from van Kemenade 1997:349) Van Kemenade (1997) suggests that "[s]ince Spec.IP was, from the earliest times, the canonical position for Nominative subject, and I was never itself a formal licenser for null subjects, the language did not become IV2 [- V2 in the IP domain], but lost its V2 character completely except in constructions with an operator in Spec,CP." Accordingly, the V-to-I became completely optional, along with the loss of expletive null subjects and of the proposed dative impersonal construction. In ENE, the V-to-I was completely optional since we can find a sentence that clearly does not have V-raising as well as one that clearly has V-raising in a


49

single work by Shakespeare, who lived from 1564 to 1616. The following examples are cited from Traugott (1972:147, 156):30 (78) a. it not belongs to you. (Sh. 2 Henry IV, IV.i.98) b. there are other Troyans that thou dream' st not of, the which for sport sake are content to do the profession some grace. (Sh. 2 Henry IV, II.i.68) What we have seen so far can be summarized in (79a-d) ("--" means that relevant data have been unavailable): (79) OE (pre-1066) ME (1066-1520) a. V-to-C obligatory obligatory => * (in the matrix clause) b. V-to-I obligatory obligatory => optional (in the matrix clause) c. V-to-C * * (in an embedded clause) d. V-to-I (obligatory) obligatory => optional (in an embedded clause) e.nullC * *=>ok (predictions)

ENE (1520-1650) *

NE *

optional

*

*

*

--

*

ok

ok

We could not find examples that show the obligatoriness of V-to-I in an embedded context in OE because of the head-final nature of VP and IP in this period (van Kemenade 1997). However, there is no reason to suppose that the matrix and embedded Infls differ in the relevant respect, and there is good reason to believe that V-to-I, as well as V-to-C, was almost obligatory in the root context in OE (e.g., the lack of scmantically vacuous auxiliaries such as do, the possibility of the expletive null subjects, the fact that when the subject is pronominal, the verb occurred in a position following both the topic and the pronominal subject). Then, given the generalization in (73), we predict that the null C was never possible in a complement clause in OE. On the other hand, given the gradual loss of the V2 requirement in the late fourteenth century, we predict that the null C was becoming possible around this time. Finally, it is clear from (78) that V-to-I was completely optional in ENE. Then, we predict that the null C was tolerated in ENE when V-to-I did not take place. We have seen so far what occurred diachronically between OE and NE and what predictions we can make about the (im)possibility of the null C in a complement clause in each stage of English. With these in mind, let us look at concrete examples in OE, ME, and ENE that are relevant to the justification of our predictions. Consider first the OE examples in (80): (80) a. Othere saede paet sio scir hatte Halgoland pe he on bude. Othere said that that shire was-called Halgoland that he in lived (King Alfred's Orosius 19.9.; cited from Traugott 1972:104)

50

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections b. ic wene 3aette noht monige begiondan Humbre noeren. I think that not many beyond the-Hombre not-were (CP. 3.16; cited from Traugott 1972:101) c. & geliefe3 3st he swelc sie swelce he gehier aet his olicceras and believes that he such is as he hears that his flatterers saecgea aet he sie. say that he is 'and believes that he is such as he hears that his flatterers say that he is.' (CP. 110.11., cited from Allen 1980:264)

As we noted above, we cannot know directly whether or not OE allowed the null C, since ungrammatical data are not available in the texts written by a currently unused language. However, the fact that the overt C in the complement of soed 'said', wene 'think', and gelieded 'believes', which is often dropped in NE, is realized in every data I could obtain, is compatible with our extrapolation that the null C was impossible in OE. An indirect support for the extrapolation may come from the fact that the socalled Comp-trace effect was absent in OE. Ogawa (1996a) presents the generalization that the Comp-trace effect does not emerge in languages in which an overt C is obligatory in the complement clause. Thus, French, Italian, German, Dutch, and Icelandic have an obligatory overt C in the absence of embedded V2 and do not have the Comp-trace effect, whereas English, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian allow the null C and do manifest the effect when the C is overtly realized: (81) a. French (Kayne 1976:256): Qui crois-tu qui a fait ce bruit? who believe-you that has made that noise 'Who do you believe (*that) has made that noise?' b. Italian (Bayer 1983): Chi credi che verra? who believe-2sg that comes 'Who do you believe will come?' c. German (Law 1991:224): Wer glaubst du, dass mich gerufen hat? who think you that me called has 'Who do you believe has called me?' (82) a. Danish (Vikner 1991:34): Jeg ved ikke hvem du tror (*at) vil laese denne bog. I know not who you believe that will read this book b. Swedish (Platzack 1987): Vem tror du (*att) kommer? who believe you that comes 'Who do you believe will come?'


51

c. Norwegian (Taraldsen 1980:14-15): Hvor mange mennesker tror du (*at) vil komme? how many people think you that will come 'How many people do you think will come?' If the generalization on the Comp-trace effect is correct, we can assume that OE did not allow the null C, since a movement of the subject in OE did not manifest the Comp-trace effect in the presence of an overt C: (83) Ac is wolde witan hu e uhte be aem monnum e wit aer but I would know how thee-Dat seemed about the men that we earlier cwaedon aet unc uhte aet waeron gelicran one monnu. said that us seemed that were like-er than men 'But I would like to know how it seemed to you about the men that we said earlier (that) were more like wild beasts than men.' (Boeth.XXVm.5 p.122.13; cited from Allen 1980:264) If OE precluded the null C in a complement clause, our theory is corroborated, since it was a language that had obligatory V-to-I raising, much like French. Next, consider ME and ENE. Since we have assumed that, at least after a later stage of ME, V-to-I was becoming optional, we predict that the null C was becoming possible around this time, and that during ENE, it became more and more commonplace. There is evidence that supports this prediction. While I could not find any example that involves the null C in a complement clause in OE, I could find some in ME and ENE. Among the following examples, the first one is from a work in 1451 (i.e., late ME), the second from a work by Shakespeare:31 (84) a. I suppose John Damme shall tell yow what he hath donn ther. (ME) (1451, PL II.228.7; cited from Traugott 1972:115) b. Do you think there is truth in them? (ENE) (Sh. MW of W II.i.174; cited from Traugott 1972:119) Apparently problematic is the following example from Shakespeare, which appears to show that V-to-C co-occurs with C-drop in a complement clause: (85) thinkst thou I'll endanger my sould gratis? (ENE) (Sh. MW of W Il.ii. 16; cited from Traugott 1972:119) However, given that disappearance of V-to-I triggered the reanalysis of V-to-C movement as base-generation of V in C, as in modern Danish, (84) may indicate that the sentence-initial V originates in C and controls an empty verb in VP. Therefore, our prediction is perfectly borne out in late ME and ENE, as well.32

52


2.4.3.5 A Summary We have argued in this section that all the major Germanic languages, which are essentially divided into three classes, are compatible with our generalization that the C in a complement clause can be null only (i) if the selecting verb remains in situ or (ii) if a clausemate verb is raised and adjoind to the null C. It was shown that Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Middle English, Early Modern English, and Modern English belong to the former class, whereas German, Dutch, West Flemish, Frisian, and Yiddish belong to the latter. Icelandic and Old English (seem to) preclude the null C because the matrix verb obligatorily raises to I (or C) and the clausemate verb cannot raise to C. We have subsumed all these facts under the generalization in (73) and argued that this generalization is accounted for by condition (5) and the assumption that the null C is universally an affix that must be supported by the closest overt element. The fact that our generalization applies to both synchronic and diachronic facts strongly justifies our approach to the distribution of the null C. 2.4.4 Japanese Departing from the Germanic languages for the moment, let us focus our attention on the Japanese language, which constitutes a particular language family by itself. I will show that in spite of this particularity, Japanese is compatible with the now familiar generalization on C-drop. Japanese has a number of outstanding properties, some of which are these: (i) having a particle system of Case; (ii) permitting the multiple subject construction; (iii) being an SOV language; (iii) permitting free word order phenomena (scrambling); (iv) manifesting no morphological agreement in phifeatures between a verb and its arguments; (v) licensing existential floating quantifiers; (vi) allowing extraction from a subject noun phrase; (vii) permitting a dative subject with certain stative predicates. None of the languages we have seen in the foregoing subsections share all (or even some) of these properties. In this sense, Japanese forms a particular language family. From the viewpoint of the possibility of the null C in a complement clause, however, this language (more accurately, the standard Japanese spoken in the Tokyo area) belongs to the overwhelmingly larger group that includes the Romance languages in that it does not allow the null C in a complement clause: (86) John-ga [Mary-ga asita kuru *(to)] itta (koto) John-Norn Mary-Norn tomorrow come Comp said fact '(the fact that) John said that Mary would come tomorrow' If our generalization in (73) is correct, it must be the case that in Japanese, the finite verbs in the matrix clause must raise out of VP and that no verbs in an


53

embedded clause can raise to C overtly. In what follows, I demonstrate that these are indeed what happen in this language.33 Koizumi (1995) argues, in consideration of the coordination possibilities, among others, that the verbs in Japanese have been raised to C. It is independently justifiable that each conjunct of a coordination structure must be a constituent such as NP or VP. With this in mind, consider the following examples: (87) a. Mary-ga [John-ni ringo-o huta-tu] to [Bob-ni banana-o Mary-Norn John-Dat apple-Ace two-CL and Bob-Dat banana-Acc san-bon ageta three-CL gave 'Mary gave two apples to John, and three bananas to Bob.' (ibid.: 170) b. [Mary-ga ringo-o huta-tu] to [Nancy-ga banana-o Mary-Nom apple-Acc two-CL and Nancy-Norn banana-Acc san-bon ] tabeta three-CL ate (Lit.) '[Mary two apples] and [Nancy three bananas] ate.' (ibid.: 171) In (87a), for example, if Japanese does not have overt verb raising, the left conjunct John-ni ringo-o huta-tu 'to John two apples' does not form a single constituent but consist of three independent phrases John-ni 'to John', ringo-o 'apples-Acc', and huta-tu 'two-CL', the last one being a floating quantifier modifying the direct object. Suppose, however, that the finite verb ageta 'gave' is moved out of the VP that it heads. Then, we can analyze the derivation of (87a) as follows: (88) Subject [VPIO DO FQ tv] and [VPIO DO FQ fv] V-Tense

In (88), the verb is extracted out of the VP in each conjunct in an across-the-board fashion and is moved to T in overt syntax. Since this analysis enables us to analyze (87a) as involving the coordination of two constituents, Japanese must have overt verb raising to T, at least. Similarly, the three constituents Mary-ga 'Mary-Norn', ringo-o 'apple-Acc', and huta-tu 'two-CL' in the left conjunct in (87b) can form a larger constituent if the finite verb ageta 'gave' is overtly moved out of the phrase that harbors the Nominative subject in its Spec. Independently showing that the Nominative subjects in Japanese are overtly raised to [Spec, AgrS], Koizumi (1995) concludes that the finite verb in (87b) is raised to C in overt syntax. While we assume that the finite verb in Japanese is raised to T, we cannot accept Koizumi's claim that it is raised to C. If the dative object in the Dat-Acc order is overtly raised to [Spec, X] (cf. Koizumi 1995:39), and if T selects XP as


54

its complement (Ogawa 1998b), then the finite verb that is raised out of the XP must have reached at least as high as T. However, even if the Nominative subject is overtly raised to [Spec, AgrS], the claim that the finite verb is raised up to C is verified in so far as C selects AgrSP as its complement. If there is another functional projection YP between CP and AgrSP, the two conjuncts in (87b) can form a constituent if the verb is raised to Y, even if it is not raised up to C. In fact, Koizumi (1995) assumes on independent grounds that between AgrSP and CP there is one such functional category, which he calls PolP, following Culicover (1991). Specifically, PolP is a projection for the licensing of topicalized phrases, and it is also possible in an indicative complement clause, as shown in (89): (89) John-ga [[Mary-wa sono hon-o yonda] to] omotteita (koto) John-Nom Mary-Top that book-Acc read Comp thought fact 'John thought that Mary had read that book.' The assumption that the finite verb is raised up to Pol but not to C is motivated independently. If this assumption is correct, we predict that if the Nominative subject in (87b) is replaced by a topicalized subject, the sentence turns ill-formed, since there is no constituent that includes the topic phrase in [Spec, Pol] and excludes the finite verb in Pol. This prediction is indeed borne out: (90) ?*[Mary-wa ringo-o

huta-tu] to [Nancy-wa banana-o

san-bon] tabeta.

Mary-Top apple-Ace two-CL and Nancy-Top banana-Acc three-CL ate (Lit.) '[Mary two apples] and [Nancy three bananas] ate.'

(Koizumi 1995:171, fn.7) While Koizumi himself points out the contrast between (87b) and (90) in a footnote and suggests that "the position of the verb at the point of SPELL OUT is lower than the topic," he concludes in the text that the verb is raised to C overtly. However, if the verb were raised to C and the topics fill [Spec, Pol], the string Mary-wa ringo-o huta-tu should form a constituent, and hence (90) should be ruled in for the same reasons as (87b). Hence, the contrast should unequivocally demonstrate that the finite verb is not raised to C. If the verbs in Japanese are overtly raised to T but not to C, the fact that the language does not allow the null C in a complement clause straightforwardly follows from our theory that accommodates condition (5) and the assumption that every null C is an affix that must be supported by an overt element. Saito (1985) observes the following contrast in the Kansai dialect of Japanese: (91) a.

John-wa [asita Bill-ga kuru (te)] yuuta yo. John-Top tomorrow Bill-Nom come Comp said Part 'John said (that) Bill would come tomorrow.'

Verb Raising and Null Complementizers b.

55

[Asita Bill-ga kuru *(te)] John-wa yuuta yo. (= the same meaning as (9la))

Actually, the native speakers of this dialect, including myself, admit that only two verbs in this dialect, yuu 'say' and omou 'think', allow the null C in their complement clauses if and only if the CP remains adjacent to the verb. This contrast is reminiscent of similar contrasts in English and German, repeated here as (92) and (93), respectively: (92) a. I can't believe (that) he has done it. b. [*(That) he has done it] i 1 can't believe ti. (93) a. Er sagte er habe ihn gesehen. he said he had-SUBJ him seen 'He said that he had seen him.' b. *[Hans ist krank] hat Peter gewu Hans is sick has Peter known 'That Hans is sick, Peter has known.'

(= (37a))

(= (41b))

We have given different explanations for the impossibility of the null C in (92b) and (93b). Assuming that the null C in (92) has to incorporate into the selecting verb, we have claimed that if the null C incorporates into V when the CP is at the complement of V, the CP can no longer undergo topicalization because the trace of the C lacks the relevant feature to be attracted by the matrix Top head (see note 4), whereas if the null C incorporates into V after the CP is topicalized, the C must undergo a lowering movement to V, which will be excluded either derivationally or representationally. On the other hand, we have attributed the illformedness of (93b) to a violation of the Uniformity Condition on Chain, which requires that every member of a chain be uniform in its categorial status, by making two assumptions: (i) the null C in (93a-b) is supported by the raised clausemate verb, and (ii) the CP headed by a V is of the category VP, whereas every trace of the moved CP is NP. Since English and German illustrate two core cases for the optionality of the null C in an indicative complement clause, the impossibility of the null C in (91b) will desirably receive the same explanation as either (92b) or (93b). With this in mind, let us return to (9la), which shows that in this dialect, unlike the Tokyo dialect, the null C is permitted in the complement of certain verbs. There are potentially two ways to solve this issue, depending on how one sets the following two independent parameters for the Kansai dialect: (i) whether or not the embedded verb overtly moves to C, and (ii) whether or not the selecting verb undergoes obligatory overt raising. Given the minimalist assumption that overt verb raising to T in the matrix clause is forced by the strong V feature of the matrix T, however, it is highly unreasonable to assume that in this dialect, only the two verbs yuu 'say' and omou 'think' do not raise to T, whereas other verbs raise to T. On the other hand, it is relatively more plausible to assume that these


56

two verbs select a complement clause whose finite verb can raise to C. In fact, a similar restriction is imposed on the so-called Aux-to-Comp movement in Portuguese: it is limited to the inflected infinitival complements of epistemic verbs and verbs of saying (Amber 1994). DeHaan and Weerman (1986) also point out that in Modern West Frisian, a matrix V2 language, only a few verbs including sei 'said' and leau 'believe' allow overt verb raising to I in their complement clause and that only these verbs allow the null C in their complement if and only if V2 has occurred in it (cf. section 4.3.1). Therefore, let us choose the first line of parametrization. Given this choice, the possibility of the null C in (9la) receives the same account as the well-formedness of (93a) in German. The impossibility of the null C when the CP in (91b) is scrambled is also ascribed to the same reasons as the ill-formedness of (93b). One corroboration of this conclusion comes from the fact that in the Kansai dialect, the coordination of the two "verbless" PolPs in an embedded clause is possible. Consider (94a-b): (94) a.

b.

[[Bill-ga raamen-o go-hai] to [Tom-ga soba-o jup-pai] Bill-Norn raamen-Acc five-CL and Tom-Nom soba-Acc ten-CL tabeta] omou. ate think 'I think that Bill ate five cups of raamen and that Tom ate ten cups of soba.' [[Bill-wa raamen-o go-hai] to [Tom-wa soba-o jup-pai] Bill-Top raamen-Acc five-CL and Tom-Top soba-Acc ten-CL tabeta] omou. ate think 'I think that Bill ate five cups of raamen and that Tom ate ten cups of soba.'

At least to my ear, (94b) sounds as acceptable as (94a), although there is a clearcut contrast between (87) and (90): (87) b. (90)

[Mary-ga ringo-o huta-tu] to [Nancy-ga banana-o san-bon] tabeta. ?*[Mary-wa ringo-o huta-tu] to [Nancy-wa banana-o san-bon] tabeta.

The contrast between (94b) and (90) is exactly what we expect, given our assumption that, even in this dialect, V-to-C is possible only in the complement of certain verbs but not in the root clause. The limitation of V-to-C raising to the embedded clauses is not unique to the Kansai dialect of Japanese but is also observed in Italian, where the Aux-to-Comp is a nonroot phenomenon: (95) a.

Essendo Gianni disposto ad aiutarci,... 'Gianni being ready to help us,...'

Verb Raising and Null Complementizers b.

57

*(?)E Mario disposto ad aiutarci. 'Mario is ready to help us.' (Rizzi 1982:83)

Furthermore, two speakers of non-Kansai dialects (one speaks the Tohoku dialect34 and the other the Sizuoka dialect35) have reported to me that they never allow the C-drop in a complement clause, and that (96) is as marginal as (90), although they accept both (97) and a sentence involving embedded topicalization like (89):36 (96) (97)

?*[[[Bill-wa raamen-o go-hai] to [Tom-wa soba-o jup-pai] tabeta] to] omou. (cf. (94b)) [[[Bill-ga raamen-o go-hai] to [Tom-ga soba-o jup-pai] tabeta] to] omou. (cf. (94a))

The marginality of (96) for these speakers also follows from our theory, since in the presence of an overt C, the embedded finite verb does not raise to C and since there is no constituent including the topic phrase in [Spec, PolP] and excluding the verb in Pol. To sum up, the impossibility of the null C in the Tokyo, Tohoku, and Sizuoka dialects and its possibility in the complement of certain verbs in the Kansai dialect both follow from our theory of null affixes, based on condition (5), the assumption that the null C is universally affixal, and from certain parameters as to overt verb raising in various dialects of the Japanese language, which are independently justified by the (im)possibility of conjoining certain 'verbless' constituents. I believe we have fully discussed all the conceivable possibilities of the satisfaction of the affixal property of the null C in a finite indicative nonfactive complement clause, which are determined by the choice of the values of two parameters that can essentially be independently fixed: (i) whether or not the verb in the matrix clause undergoes overt V-to-I, and (ii) whether or not the verb in the embedded clause raises to C. We have shown that the essentially two possibilities are exactly what we predict to exist. We continue to discuss some other language families, particularly languages that permit or force the VSO or VOS order, in order to corroborate our generalization. However, readers already convinced of its validity and not interested in the reproduction of our arguments by means of other language data may wish to move on to sections 4.8 and 4.9, in which we present language-internal contrasts that elegantly show the correlation between overt verb raising and the complementizer drop. 2.4.5 Celtic Languages Celtic languages are essentially VSO languages. Given the VP-internal subject hypothesis, which is well-motivated by Kuroda (1992 [1988]), Fukui (1986), Kitagawa (1986), Koopman and Sportiche (1991), Sportiche (1988), and Diesing


58

(1992), among others, there is no doubt that the finite verb is raised to I/T across the underlying position of the subject in VP. In short, they are obligatory overt verb raising languages. However, languages seem to vary with respect to whether or not the verb is raised to C. Thus, Koopman and Sportiche (1991), McCloskey (1992), and Harley (1995) argue that (finite) verbs in Modern Irish raise only to I/T, with subjects remaining in their underlying position. On the other hand, on the basis of Awbery's (1990) observation, Watanabe (1996) argues that verbs in Pembrokeshire Welsh overtly raise to C, with definite subjects being overtly raised to [Spec, AgrS]. Putting aside irrelevant technical details, we can schematize the two typical analyses of the VSO order as below:

If we assume that the landing site of the raised verb is the same in both the root and embedded clauses, we predict that if a language has the structure in (98a), the language should not allow the null C in a complement clause, for the same reasons as French and the Tokyo dialect of Japanese do not, whereas if a language can have the structure in (98b), the language should allow the null C in a complement clause, for the same reasons as German and the Kansai dialect of Japanese do. In what follows, I show that these predictions are borne out by Irish and Pembrokeshire Welsh, respectively. 2.4.5.1 Irish There are several reasons to believe that the VSO order in Modern Irish is derived by the overt movement of a finite verb to I without a movement of the subject to [Spec, I]. First, if the VSO order in Modern Irish were derived by the overt movement of the subject to [Spec, I] plus overt verb raising to C, it would be predicted that in an embedded complement headed by an overt C, V-to-C could never take place, much as in many V2 languages, and hence C-VSO order could never be derived. Contrary to this prediction, however, the order in embedded clauses is always C-VSO, as pointed out by Koopman and Sportiche (1991): (99)

Ceapaim [go bhfaca se an madra]. think-Isg that saw-DEP he-Nom the dog 'I thinks that he saw the dog.'

Second, McCloskey (1992) advances convincing arguments from the interpretation of sentential adverbs that the verb raises to the left edge of IP and no further in Modern Irish. The essence of his argument goes as follows: the adverbial clause that clearly modifies an embedded clause (from an IP-adjoined position in English) occurs to the left of the overt embedded complementizer, which can be best explained if one assumes that the overt C in


59

this language undergoes PF merger with the embedded verb that raises up to the clausemate I/T and that the adverbial clause in Irish is also adjoined to IP, in the same way as in English (note that, as a result of the PF merger of two hierarchically arranged objects, pronunciation takes place at the lower position): (100) a. *It's surprising in general that he understands what is going on. b. Lionaim d'eagla da dtogfainn mo radharc doibh go dtitfinn. fill-lsg of fear if lift-1sg.COND my sight from-3sg that fall-1sg 'I fill up with fear that were I to take eyes off, then I would fall.' Third, Harley (1995) and a reference therein, showing that in Old Irish, the verb and its inflection take two different forms (called 'Absolute' and 'Conjunct' forms, respectively) depending on whether or not these are in absolute initial position, argue that this fact can be best understood if we assume that this language has a filled-C requirement and that V-to-C is possible if and only if the sentence is not introduced by a conjunct particle, a preverb, or a pronoun (ibid.:38): (101) a. Beirid in fer in claideb. (Absolute) carries-3sg-Abs the man the sward The man carries the sward.' b. Ni beir/*beirid in fer in claideb. (Conjunct) Neg carries-3sg-Conj/*Abs the man the sward 'The man does not carry the sward.' And, importantly, even in the absence of the overt V-to-C, the VSO order is derived, which indicates that the Irish VSO order reflects the overt V-to-I movement plus the absence of the subject raising to [Spec, I]. It is reasonable to conclude from these considerations that Irish has overt Vto-I movement but not overt V-to-C movement. Then, it is predicted that this language does not allow the null C in a complement clause. And this prediction is indeed borne out: it seems that the overt C go in (99) cannot be omitted. When a wh-movement takes place, the C that c-commands the extraction site is altered into a different form aN or aL, depending on whether the moved operator binds an overt resumptive pronoun (McCloskey 1979, McCloskey and Hale 1984, Law 1991:177). This alternation may be comparable to the que/qui alternation in French (Kayne 1976; Rizzi 1990). It seems, however, that every finite clause must be introduced by either go, aN or aL, whether it is a complement clause, as in (99) and (102a), or a relative clause, as in (102b): (102) a. an rud aL deir siad aL duirt go raibh an cogadh thart the minister that say they that said that was the war over 'the minister that they say (that) said that the war was over' (McCloskey 1979)

60

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections b. an rud aN choinnfonn tu ceilte orthu e the thing Comp keep-Pres you concealed on-them it 'the thing that you keep concealed from them' (McCloskey and Hale 1984:497)

In fact, if Ogawa's (1996b) Generalization is verified, the absence of the Comptrace effect in (102a) must indicate that the overt C is obligatory in this language (recall our discussion of the Old English data). 2.4.5.2 Pembrokeshire Welsh As Awbery (1990) observes, in Pembrokeshire Welsh, the subjects can occur in either of two potential positions, and the choice between them has something to do with their definiteness. The two positions are distinguished from each other by whether they precede or follow the negative marker ddim 'not'. If a personal pronoun is the subject, it always precedes ddim, whereas if an unambiguously indefinite NP headed by a bare plural or a mass noun is the subject, it always follows ddim: (103) a. Weles iddim y fudde honno ariod. saw-lsg I not the churn that ever 'I never saw that churn.' (ibid.:4) b. Ond ddath ddim pethe i ben fel odd hi wedi fwriadu. but came-3sg not things to end as was she after intend 'But things didn't work out as she had intended.' (ibid.:4) c. Nethe ddim dwr pishtyll y tro. would-do-3sg not water spring the turn 'Water from the spring wouldn't do the trick.' (ibid.:5) If a definite full NP is a subject, it may either precede or follow ddim: (104) a. Fytith Mair ddim pwdim reis caled nawr! eat-FUT Mair not pudding rice hard now 'Mair won't eat hard rice pudding even now!' b. A fywodd ddim 'r 'en grwban bach, and lived-3sg not the old torroise little 'And the little old tortoise didn't survive.' (ibid.:5) This paradigm directly follows from Diesing's (1992) Tree Splitting Hypothesis, which states that indefinite specific or generic subjects occur in [Spec, I] and map into restrictive clause, whereas existential or cardinal subjects remain in [Spec, V] and licensed by existential closure (see section 4.6 for a more specific claim by Diesing and Jelinek 1995). It is controversial which syntactic projection existential closure applies to. Thus, Watanabe (1996) claims, on the


61

basis of Awbery's observation, that this dialect of Welsh has overt V-to-I-to-C raising, and the two subject positions correspond to [Spec, AgrS] and [Spec, T], respectively, which implies that the negative marker ddim marks the leftmost boundary of TP. Elimination of AgrP for conceptual reasons (Chomsky 1995:chapter 4) might lead us to reevaluate Watanabe's proposal along Diesing's lines. Alternatively, Kiss (1996) argues that existential closure applies to IP, and the indefinite specific and generic subjects are moved out of the IP and fill the Spec of what she calls 'Referential)P' in overt syntax both in German and in English (cf. also Heim 1982). Crucially, however, they share the idea that certain definite/specific NPs, such as the personal pronoun in (103a) and the full NP subject in (104a), fill the Spec of the highest inflectional functional category, whether we call it I (Diesing 1992), AgrS (Watanabe 1996), T (Chomsky 1995:chapter 4), or Ref (Kiss 1996). Then, the finite verbs in Pembrokeshire Welsh, which precede the definite/specific subjects, must be raised to C overtly, as Watanabe (1996) suggests. This conclusion should be extended to the embedded clauses, since they also manifest the same paradigms as (103)-(104). Then, we predict that in this dialect of Welsh, unlike in Irish, the null C is permitted in a complement clause because it can be supported by the raised verb, much as in Germanic SOV languages. This prediction is indeed borne out. In contrast to the Irish example in (99), the following sentence without an overt C is well-formed: (105)

A ma "r bachgen hwnnw 'n gweud 'tho i na wedodd e and is-3sg the boy that in saying to-lsgme not said-3sg he ddim gair wrth i Hall. not word to the other 'And that boy says to me that he didn't say a word to the other.' (Awbery 1990:8)

Note that in (105), the complement of the highest verbal noun gweud 'saying' takes one Dative argument 'tho i 'to me' and a Comp-less sentential complement introduced by the finite verbal complex na wedodd 'not said', which we assume to be in C°. The absence of an overt C in (105) contrasts with the obligatoriness of one in (17a), repeated below as (106): (106)

I suggested to John *(that) he should leave early.

The contrast between (105) and (106) straightforwardly follows from our assumption, following Watanabe (1996), that the verbs in Pembrokeshire Welsh overtly raise to C. Although we do not know much about standard Welsh, the same argument also applies to this dialect, since the following Comp-less sentence is well-formed (cf. Rouveret 1996 and references therein):


62 (107)

Dywedodd Mair fod ci mawr yn yr ardd. said Mair be dog big in the garden 'Mair said that a big dog was in the garden.'

(Rouveret 1996:138)

To sum up, we have seen in this subsection two types of Celtic languages that both have the VSO order (an indication of overt verb raising) but differ in whether the finite verbs raise to I or C overtly. We have argued that both types of languages are compatible with our generalization in (73), since Irish, which does not have overt V-to-C raising, does not seem to permit the null C in a complement clause, whereas Pembrokeshire Welsh, which has overt V-to-C raising, permits the null C in the same environment. 2.4.6 Arabic Languages Some dialects of Arabic languages permit free alternation between VSO and SVO, only with some difference in the pattern of subject-verb agreement (Mohammad 1989), which we are not concerned with here, though they are essentially VSO languages. It is conceivable that they involve obligatory overt verb raising, much as in the Celtic languages. In fact, Diesing and Jelinek (1995) argue that in Egyptian Arabic, the verb is overtly raised to an aspectual inflectional head above VP, in consideration of the distribution of the object pronouns in this dialect. The argument roughly goes as follows. First, they observe, following Diesing (1992), that in German, pronouns, unlike certain nonpronominal definite NPs, must always move out of the VP by scrambling even if they are direct objects: (108)

... weil ich selten die keinste Katze streichle. since I seldom the smallest cat pet 'since I seldom pet the smallest cat.' (109) a. ... weil ich sie selten streichle. since I her seldom pet 'since I seldom pet her.' b. *... weil ich selten sie streichle.

Diesing and Jelinek derive this asymmetry from the following claims. On the one hand, the definite NPs of the sort in (108) are typical attributive (rather than referential) and do not introduce a variable to be bound by existential closure, and therefore there is no problem with their remaining in the scope of existential closure at S-structure, even if Tree Splitting applies to S-structure in German. On the other hand, since (unstressed) pronouns are variables of type <e> and there is no room for them to receive a quantificational interpretation, they cannot be bound by existential closure and they must move out of its scope at S-structure. Second, in Egyptian Arabic (EA), there is a subject-object asymmetry with


63

respect to pronouns. While free-stranding subject pronouns do occur, there are no free-stranding object pronouns: (110) a. huwwa saaf ig-gamal. he saw the-camel 'He saw the camel.' b. ig-gamel saaf-u(h). the camel saw-him 'The camel saw him.' They account for this asymmetry by claiming that the verb undergoes head movement to the higher functional head in EA and that the object pronoun in (1lOb) cannot itself move out of VP. Since the object pronoun must escape from the scope of existential closure but cannot itself move out of VP, it must attach to the verb and raise out of VP by 'free ride'. It therefore follows that the object pronoun cannot be stranded free in EA. (See Diesing and Jelinek 1995 for a more detailed discussion.) If they are correct in claiming that the verbs in EA overtly raise out of VP, we predict that EA does not allow the null C in a complement clause. This prediction is indeed borne out by the following example from Diesing and Jelinek (1995:137): (111)

suft *('inn) Ali kaan biyibii saw(lsg.PERF) that Ali was(3masc.sg.PST) selling (3masc.sg.IMP) burtu'aan oranges 'I saw that Ali was selling oranges.'

2.4.7 Modern Greek: A Balkan Language Modern Greek is one of the Balkan languages and is an essentially SVO language, though it also permits the VSO order, with both the auxiliary and the main verb preceding the subject: (112) a. I Maria ipe oti tha figi afti. Maria-Norn said that will leave she 'Mary, said that she /* will leave.' (Terzi 1991:477) b. e rapse o janis ena r rama. wrote-he John-Nom a-Acc letter-Acc 'John wrote a letter.' (Philippaki-Warburton 1987:315) Furthermore, Rivero (1994) notes that "[a]dverb position is quite free in these [Balkan] languages, and there is no prohibiton against an adverb following the subject NP and preceding NegP and V, regardless of the nature of the adverb,.. .

64


[though] in negative simple sentence, when adverbs appear after Neg they must also follow V, regardless of the nature of the adverbs" (ibid.:75): (113) a. Dhen (se) fksera akomi. not you know-1s yet 'I did not know you yet.' b. *Dhen (se) akomi iksera. These paradigms show that the Balkan languages, including Modern Greek, Albanian, and Bulgarian, are another class of language that has obligatory overt verb raising to I. As expected, at least Modern Greek prohibits the null C in a complement clause: (114) a. I Maria nomizi *(oti) o Yiannis egrapse kala. Mary thinks that John wrote well 'Mary thinks that John wrote well.' (Terzi 1991:477) b. O Yiannis ipe *(oti) evrexse poli. John said that rained much 'John said that it had rained much.' (ibid.:478) 2.4.8 Hungarian: A Finno-Ugric Language Hungarian, a Finno-Ugric language, basically permits all of the six possible permutations of S, V, and O: SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS, OVS, and OSV are all permissible word orders. However, the preverbal arguments tend to have a focus interpretation (Horvath 1986). Kiss (1987) argues that Hungarian is essentially an SVO language rather than a language that permits free word order. As expected, the distribution of verbs is rather rigid. First, in an indicative noninterrogative sentence, the verb can never precede the locative argument: (115) a. Mari az asztalra tette az edenyeket. Mary the table-onto put the dishes-Ace 'Mary put the dishes on the table.' b.*Mari tette az asztalra az edenyeket. (ibid..-54) Second, the verbs in Hungarian can never precede the sentential adverbs, or what Jackendoff (1972) called 'S-adverbs' (ibid.:23-25): (116) a. minden varakozas ellenere, Janos megcafolta a professzor all expectation contrary-to John refuted-3sg the professor erveit. argument-3poss.pl. Acc 'Contrary to all expectations, John refuted the professor's arguments.' b. Janos, minden varakozas ellenere, megcafolta a professzor erveit.

Verb Raising and Null Complementizers c. d. e. f. g.

65

Janos megcafolta a professzor erveit, minden varakozas ellenere. Janos a professzor erveit, minden varakozas ellenere, megcafolta. *Janos megcafolta, minden varakozas ellenere, a professzor erveit. *megcafolta a professzor erveit, minden varakozas ellenere, Janos. *megcafolta, minden varakozas ellenere, a professzor erveit Janos.

Given the reasonable assumption that the sentential adverbs can be adjoined only to I' or IP, the contrast in (116) shows that the main verbs in Hungarian cannot move to Infl (cf. the verb in (116c) precedes the S-adverb, though it could be analyzed as being adjoined to the right periphery of IP). What complicates the analysis of verb raising in Hungarian is the fact that the verbs can precede some VP-adverbs and preverbs (abbreviated as 'PV') (Kiss 1987:73): (117) a. Janos olvasta mar fel ezt a verset. John read already out this-Acc the poem-Acc 'John has already read this poem.' b. Janos olvassa meg fel ezt a verset. John reads PV out this-Acc the poem-Acc 'John will still read out this poem (some day).' Importantly, however, this head-movement is not freely permitted but can apply only when the sentence is not universally quantified. Thus, when a sentence is universally quantified, the verbs cannot be raised across the PV (Kiss 1987:8893): (118) a. Janos 'mindento 1 'meg ijed. John everything-from PV gets-frightened 'John gets frightened from everything.' (PV-V; ibid.: 89) b. Janos 'mindig 'meg ijed. John always PV gets-frightened 'John always gets frightened.' (PV-V; ibid.:91) c. *Janos 'mindig ijed 'meg. (V-PV) In short, although Hungarian permits overt V-raising to v in some limited situations (i.e., (117a-b)), in most cases even the partial verb movement is impossible. Given this conclusion, it is predicted that the null C is permitted in a complement clause of this language if the matrix verb remains in situ. This prediction is indeed borne out:37 (119) a. Janos azt mondta, (hogy) otre jon. John it-Acc said that five-by comes 'John said (that) he will come by five.' (Kiss 1987:139)

66

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. b. "Azt hiszem (hogy) az akku kimerult. it-Acc believe-1 sg that the battery went-dead 'I think (that) the battery is dead.' (Kenesei 1994:335)

In (119), there is no evidence of overt verb raising in the matrix clause, for there is no PV that follows the main verb. Therefore, the null C in these sentences can be moved and adjoined to the selecting verb to satisfy its affixal property. The adjunction does not result in a violation of condition (5). Hence, (119) is wellformed even without an overt C. Kenesei (1994) notes that the null C becomes impossible when the finite verbs in (119) are replaced by infinitive verbs, as in (120): (120) a. Butasag volt azt hin-ni *(hogy) az akku kimerult. silliness was it-Acc believe-INF that the battery went-dead 'It was a silly thing to believe (that) the battery is dead.' (ibid.:337) b. Azt gondol-va *(hogy) Olaszorszagba mennek Emma berbeadta it-Ace think-PRT that Italy-ILL go-3pl Emma rent a hazat. the house-Ace 'Thinking that they'd go to Italy, Emma rented out the house.' Example (120a) shows that, unlike its English counterparts, an infinitive verb in Hungarian is a complex word formed by attaching a suffix to a verb stem, as shown in the gloss of each sentence. Even after the suffixation, the verb remains a verb, rather than being changed into a noun, since it is assigning Accusative Case. Nevertheless, the infinitivized verb cannot license the null C in (120a). In (120b), the finite verb is suffixed by a verbal particle, and in this case, too, the verb cannot license the null C. Since Hungarian is an otherwise rigid head-initial language, it is reasonable to analyze the infinitive marker in (120a) and the postverbal particle in (120b) as the overt realizations of a functional head (either v or T) triggering overt verb raising. Note also that the embedded verbs in these sentences have not been raised to C. Thus, the fact that the null C is impossible in these constructions directly follows from condition (5). Certain verbs in Hungarian do not tolerate the null C in their complement. In these cases, however, the null C becomes possible when the embedded V-to-C takes place (Kenesei 1994:339): (121) a. Azt ajanlom *(hogy) meg-vizsagal-j-uk az ugyet. it-Acc suggest that PV-examine-J-1 pi the matter-Acc 'I suggest that we examine the matter.' b. Azt ajanlom (hogy) vizsagal-j-uk meg az ugyet. it-Acc suggest that examine-J-l p1 PV the matter-Acc 'I suggest that we examine the matter.'


67

Consider the contrast between (12la) and (121b). The only difference between them is whether the PV precedes or follows the embedded main verb, though this difference affects the possibility of the null C. Recall that while main verbs in Hungarian are often preceded by a preverbal marker (PV), as in (118a-b), they come to precede the PV when they undergo head-movement to a higher functional head, as in (117b). Given this fact, this contrast between (121a) and (121b) can be understood by assuming that in (121b) the matrix verb ajanlom 'suggest' undergoes obligatory overt raising for some reason and that the verb in the embedded clause vizsagal 'examine', which precedes the PV, has been raised to C when the complementizer hogy is omitted. Given these assumptions, the null C in (121b) can satisfy its affixal property by the raised clausemate verb in the same way as in the Germanic V2 languages. Hence, the null C is possible in (121b). One support for this analysis comes from the fact that when a focus element intervenes between hogy and the preposed main verb, as in (12le), the omission of hogy becomes impossible (ibid.:339): (121) c. Azt ajanlom *(hogy) ma vizsagal-j-uk meg az ugyet. it-Acc suggest that today examine-J-l p1 PV the matter-Acc 'I suggest that we examine the matter TODAY.' Since the focus element is not adjoined to a position higher than PolP, the verb following it has not been raised to C overtly. Hence, the null C cannot satisfy its affixal property in any way in (121c). This is the reason the overt C is obligatory here. In short, Hungarian utilizes two different ways of satisfying the affixal property of the null C as exemplified by the English and German data, depending on syntactic contexts. 2.4.9 Edo: A Nigerian Language A language-internal variety like that found in Hungarian is also observed in a totally different family of language. As an anonymous LI reviewer points out to me, the Nigerian language Edo does not normally allow V-raising, and it does (slightly marginally) allow complementizers to drop. In this sense, it is generally like English, Chinese, and Hungarian: (122) a. Ozo giEgiE mianmian wEE Adesuwa wu. Ozo quickly forgot that Adesuwa died 'Odo quickly forgot that Adesuwa died.' b. *Ozo mianmian giEgiE wEE Adesuwa wu. (123) a. (?)Ozo gigiE mianmian Adesuwa wu. However, there is one tense (past perfective) that does induce obligatory verb raising in this language:


68

(124) a. Ozo mianmian-rEn giEgiE wEE Adesuwa wu. Ozo forgot-past perf. quickly that Adesuwa died 'Ozo had forgot quickly that Adesuwa died.' b. *Ozo giEgiE mianmian-rEn wEE Adesuwa wu. When the verb is in this tense and position, the omission of the complementizer becomes remarkably worse than when the verb is in the simple past tense and in place: (125)

*Ozo mianmian-rEn giEgiE Adesuwa wu.

This situation in Edo is very similar to what we have just seen for Hungarian. In Hungarian, the finite verbs in the present tense or simple past tense normally remain in situ, and these verbs can license the empty complementizer in their complement, though when the verbs are followed by the suffixal particle -va or the infinitive marker -ni, they become unable to license the null C. In Edo, the only difference between the simple past tense form and the past perfective form of a verb is that the latter but not the former is followed by the suffixal particle rEn. Then, it is reasonable to assume, as we do for Hungarian, that only in the past perfective sentence is the verb overtly raised to a functional head that is headed by the suffix (across the VP-adjoined adverb giEgiE 'quickly'). Then, the contrast between (123) and (125) straightforwardly follows from our theory. In fact, such a language-internal contrast provides us with a stronger piece of evidence for the theory than any contrast observed across languages, since, as two anonymous reviewers commonly point out, given the typological fact that verb raising (of some sort) is quite common and that complementizer drop is uncommon, one might argue, in the absence of these language-internal contrasts, that there is no causal relation between the two facts, though such a counterargument is inapplicable here. 2.4.10 A Summary In this section, we have presented the cross-linguistic generalization (= (73)) that the possibility of the null C in a complement clause depends on the absence of the overt raising of the selecting verb or the presence of the overt raising of the clausemate verb. (73) was motivated not only by the English data but also by the scrutiny of twenty eight languages/dialects that we can divide into three classes. (See Table 2.1.) Type I languages do not have obligatory overt V-to-v raising in either the matrix or the embedded clause and have the possibility of the null C in the complement clause; Type II languages have obligatory V-to-v raising (followed by obligatory v-to-I raising) in the matrix clause, do not have V-to-C raising in the embedded clause, and do not license the null C in the complement clause; Type III languages have obligatory overt V-to-v raising in the matrix clause and optional V-to-C raising in the embedded clause, and can license the

Table 2.1 The correlation between verb raising and empty complementizer Null C (embedded)

V-to-v

V-to-C (embedded)

Type I Danish Swedish Norwegian Chinese Modern English Edo (simple past) Hungarian (simple past) ENE late ME

* * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * *

ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok

Type II OE French Romanian Irish Egyptian Arabic Modern Greek Edo (past perfect) Hungarian (infinitive) Japanese Frisian (woe sizze) Icelandic

obl obl obl obl obi obl obl obl obl obl obl

* * * * * * * * * * */ok?

* * * * * * * * * * %

Type HI Kansai Japanese Italian Spanish Portuguese Yiddish Pembrokeshire Welsh German Bavarian Dutch West Flemish Frisian (sei) Hungarian (ajanlom)

obl obl obl obl obl obl obl obl obl obl obl obl

ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok

ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X) ok(X)

ok (X) = ok only when there is embedded V-to-C movement 69

70


null C in the complement clause if and only if the embedded clausemate verb raises to the C. What has turned out from the examination of cross-linguistic data are the following two points. First, as the gradual disappearance of V-to-v along the diachronic change from OE to NE has triggered the emergence of the null C, so the presence or absence of overt V-to-v perfectly correlates with the possibility of the null C synchronically. Second, the obligatoriness of the matrix V2 is determined by a parameter independent of both the possibility of the embedded V2 and the possibility of V-to-I, and hence, we find the matrix V2 without finding the embedded V2 or the V-to-I, as in MSLs, and we also find the embedded V2 without finding the matrix V2, as in the Kansai dialect of Japanese or Hungarian. We have argued that although we have to describe the second point as possible parametric options, there is a correlation between where the verb exists in overt syntax and whether or not the null C is possible and that this correlation can be explained by our theory of null affixes, which incorporates the following two statements: (i) every occurrence of null inflectional affix is subject to condition (5), and (ii) the null C is universally an inflectional affix and must be supported by the closest overt element. We have concentrated on two types of 'the closest overt element' so far: the selecting verb (in languages without overt verb raising) and the clausemate verb (in languages that permit the embedded V2). However, these two do not exhaust all the logical possibilities; we return to other possibilities in sections 7 and 8. Finally, some comments about the diagnostics of verb raising may be in order. In the literature, a number of diagnostics have been presented for the presence of overt verb raising, and we have crucially used some of them in our discussion: (i) the richness of certain morphological agreement on finite verbs (Roberts 1985, 1993; Kosmeijer 1986; Rohrbacher 1994; Vikner 1997; among others); (ii) the possibility of null subjects (Roberts 1993); (iii) the fact that the main verb precedes nonaffixal negative elements or VP-adverbs that precede the direct objects (Emonds 1978; Pollock 1989); (iv) the fact that the exclusive set of a subject, an object, and an object-oriented FQ behaves as a constituent (Koizumi 1995); (iv) the fact that the main verb can or must precede the surface subject (McCloskey 1992, Koopman and Sportiche 1991). Now, given the wide coverage of our generalization in (73), the impossibility of the null C may be added to the set of diagnostics for distinguishing languages (and constructions) with overt verb raising from those without it.38 In fact, we use it in the next section and in chapter 3 in defense of the hypothesis that derived nominals are syntactically derived by verb raising.


71

2.5 Null Cs in the Complement of Derived Nominals: A Sketch We have shown in the foregoing sections that if the null C is precluded in the nonfactive complement of a verb, the verb has undergone obligatory overt raising to C, I, or v. With this generalization in mind, we return in this section to the fact that the finite clausal complement of a derived nominal cannot be headed by the null C: (126) *the statement [

John is guilty]

Pesetsky attributes this fact to Myers's Generalization by assuming that the derived nominal is formed in syntax by attaching a nominalizing suffix to a verb stem and that the null C must affix to the selecting verb before, rather than after, the nominalizing suffix attaches to it. However, readers may have noticed that this account is bound to the ordering problem of which affix attaches to the verb stem first, the nominalizing suffix or the null C. If we allow the nominalizing suffix to attach to the verb stem before the null C adjoins to it, the derived nominal should have the form [[V+ment]+ c] and hence does not violate condition (5). We can avoid this potential problem without losing Pesetsky's essential claim if we suppose, following Valois (1991) and Hazout (1995), that derived nominals are formed by verb raising to a nominalizing functional head in overt syntax (see chapter 3 for independent justification of this hypothesis). Then, affixation of the null C to the selecting verb/adjective and subsequent raising of the latter to the nominalizing functional head is forced by the Strict Cycle Condition, and the resulting word should violate condition (5) for the same reason as the examples we have already seen. Given a syntactic nominalization analysis, the underlying structure for (126) is (127), from which we derive (126) by head-movement of V to the functional category Nominalizer (hereafter, Nz). (127) [DP D [NzP DP-Gen (Agent) [Nz. Nz [VP V CP (Proposition) ]]]] Given (127), (126) has the structure as in (128) when C is null.

Here, the verb, to which the null C has affixed, is moved in overt syntax and adjoined to the functional category Nz. Example (128) violates condition (5) in PF. Hence, the obligatoriness of that in (126) is attributed to the obligatory overt verb raising (to Nz here), in the same way as in (1b) and (17a-d) (see chapter 3 for a more detailed argument along these lines).39 If this line of argument is correct, we predict that in languages in which the null C can satisfy its affixal property without adjoining to the selecting head,

72


even a derived nominal can take a finite clausal complement headed by the null C. This prediction is indeed borne out in German. As discussed earlier, a finite clause CP in German can be headed by the null C to which the clausemate verb is raised and adjoined. And such a clause can occur in the complement of a derived nominal, too (Miiller 1996:396): (129) [Die Behauptung [keiner habe davon gewusst]] ist natiirlich falsch. the claim no one has-SUB J of-that known is of course wrong 'The claim that no one knew about this is of course wrong.' In (129), the null C need not move and adjoin to the verb stem of the derived nominal Behauptung, since it can satisfy its affixal property by the clausemate verb raised and adjoined to it. Hence, condition (5) is not violated here. Similarly, the finite clausal complement of some derived nominals in Japanese can be headed by the null C. Consider the following:40 (130) a. Johni-ni [PROi Tokyo-ni iku (toiu)] kanousei -ga aru. John-Dat Tokyo-to go Comp possibility-Nom is 'It is possible that John will go to Tokyo.' b. John i ni [PRO eigo-o osieta (toiu)] keiken- ga aru. John-Dat English-Acc cc taught Comp experience-Norn is 'John has taught English.' Other nouns that belong to this class include keikaku 'plan', syuukan 'habit', hanasi 'story', and kioku 'memory'. As conceived by their English translations, most of the nouns that head this construction either have a similar interpretation to epistemic modals or are nominalization of verbs of saying. Kishimoto (1996) argues that these nouns and the main verbs that select them undergo LF restructuring by head-movement of the former to the latter and form complex modal-like verbs. As argued in section 4.4, in the Kansai dialect of Japanese, the verb in an embedded clause overtly raises to C if and only if the verb that selects the embedded clause is the epistemic verb omou 'think' or the verb of saying yuu 'say'. In that section I pointed out the lexical limitation on the verbs that 'trigger' overt verb raising to C in their complement and compared it with the fact that the Aux-to-Comp phenomenon in Portuguese is restricted to the complements of epistemic verbs and verbs of saying. Amber (1994) attributes the exceptional property of these verbs to the presence of a tense feature in the Comp position of their complement (to the best of my knowledge, this idea is originally from den Besten (1983)). Returning to the class of nouns exemplified by kanousei 'possibility' in (130), we know that they are similar to epistemic modals or verbs of saying, and we also find that these nouns select a particular tense form for the verbs in their complements. Compare (130) with (131).


73

(131) a. John-ni [Tokyo-ni iku/??itta] kanousei-ga aru. John-Dat Tokyo-to go/went possibility-Nom is 'It is possible that John went to Tokyo.' b. John-ni [eigo-o osie-ta/*osie-ru] keiken-ga aru/atta. John-Dat English-Acc taught/teach experience-Norn is/was 'John has/had the experience of teaching English.' Then, it is reasonable to assume that these nouns select a particular tense feature in the head of their CP complement and that the C head can attract the clausemate (finite) verb in overt syntax. Given this assumption, the fact that the complement clauses in question can be headed by the null C in (130) is a result of the fact that it can satisfy its affixal property by the verb adjoined to it. The well-formedness of (129) and (130) is problematic for both Kayne/Stowell's and Pesetsky's claims. Kayne's (1981) and Stowell's (1981) essential claim is that (non- -marking) Ns do not properly govern the null C in their complement. Pesetsky's (1995) claim that the null C must satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the selecting head. If either of these claims were correct, (129) and (130) should require the overt C for the same reasons as (126), since they involve sentential complementation to derived nominals headed by the null C. In other words, their systems predict that an overt C is universally obligatory in the complement of N, whether or not V overtly raises to the head of the complement. Therefore, I reject (part of) their claims that trail the government theory and conclude that the null C is an affix that must be supported by the closest overt element c-commanding it (not limited to the selecting head). The relevant head happens to be the clausemate verb in (129) and (130).

2.6 Null Cs in ECM and Control Complements We have argued for two points in the previous section. The first is that, given condition (5) and the assumption that the null C in every finite clause is an inflectional affix, we can relate the (im)possibility of the null C in the finite clausal complement of verbs and derived nominals in English and many other languages to the presence or absence of overt verb raising. The second is that the hosts of the null C must be defined as the closest overt elements c-commanding it, rather than the selecting heads. In light of these ideas, we have explained the fact that German and (a dialect of) Japanese permit the null C in the complement of a (derived) nominal in a way compatible with the claim that nominalization involves syntactic verb raising to Nz. Keeping these conceptions in mind, in this section we will look at the distribution of infinitive complements and explain its limited distribution in English, as well as a certain cross-linguistic variation on it. The traditional conception on infinitive complements is that control complements are CP, whereas ECM complements are IP (Chomsky 1981; but see Kayne 1981). However, in opposition to this conception, Ormazabal (1994, 1995) argues that the control complements are bare IP, whereas ECM complements are

74


CP headed by the null C. He bases this argument on a difference in semantic interpretation between the control and ECM complements and the Canonical Structural Realization principle (Grimshaw 1979). The interpretive difference concerns the opposition between proposition and event. Note, first, that while the pronominal subject of the predicate be true/false can refer to the ECM complement but not the control complement: (134) a. Mary believes [Rose to have bought the company]v but iti is not true, b. *Mary tried [to buy the company],, but iti is not true. Given that only propositions can be evaluated with respect to truth/falsity, (134a) shows that the ECM complement denotes a proposition. Note also that, while (134b) is ill-formed, the control complement can be the antecedent of the pronominal subject of the eventive predicate such as will never happen: (135)

Mary is trying [to buy the company],, but iti will never happen.

Example (135) shows that the control complement denotes eventuality in Bach's (1986) sense. Ormazabal then refers to Grimshaw's (1979, 1991) Canonical Structural Realization (CSR). Grimshaw (1991) proposes that the CSR of action is VP, that of event is IP, and that of proposition is CP. Since the control complement denotes an eventuality, it should be IP.41 But, since the ECM complement denotes a proposition, it should be CP. Given this structural distinction, Ormazabal explains the fact that while the verb that subcategorizes for an ECM complement cannot be nominalized, the verb that subcategorizes for a control complement can: (136) a. b. (137) a. b.

*the/*Mary's belief [(of) John to be intelligent] *the/*John's consideration [(of) Mary to be smart] the/Mary's decision [PRO to leave the company] the/Mary's intention [PRO to leave the company]

Under the syntactic nominalization hypothesis we are assuming, (136) and (137) have the structures in (138) and (139), respectively.

Example (138) violates condition (5) since the null C is contained in the projection of the nominalizing affix. (139) is ruled in since it involves no such violation. In short, the descriptive generalization is that the verb that selects an infinitival CP complement cannot be nominalized if the CP lacks phonetic content. This is exactly what we expect given condition (5) and the assumption that the null C is universally an inflectional affix.


75

Given that the ECM complements are CP headed by the null C, whereas the control complements are IP, we predict that, other things being equal, obligatory overt verb raising languages should permit the control complements but not ECM complements. Although there is a complication in relation to whmovement, as we discuss later, this prediction is basically borne out. First of all, Romance languages allow the control complements as freely as English: (140)

Jean a essaye/decide [IPPROdepartir]. Jean has tried/decided to leave 'Jean tried/decided to leave.'

Since the control complement is IP, overt verb raising in the matrix clause does not affect its distribution.42 Second, Romance languages do not have the ECM construction: (141)

*Jean suppose Marie avoir resolu le probleme. Jean supposes Marie have resolved the problem 'Jean supposes Marie to have resolved the problem.'

Given that the ECM complement is CP whose head is a null inflectional affix, we can rule out (141) for the same reasons as (136), in violation of condition (5) after the V+C complex is moved and adjoined to v. Third, we predict that even overt verb raising languages should allow the ECM construction if the C is nonnull or the infinitive verb in the ECM clause overtly raises to the C. These cases are observed in Japanese and European Portuguese, respectively: (142) Japanese: Yamada wa orokanimo Tanaka o tensai da *(to) omotteita. Yamada Top stupidly Tanaka Acc genius is Comp thought 'Yamada stupidly thought Tanaka to be genius.' (143) European Portuguese (Raposo 1987:98): a. 0 Manel pensa terem os amigos levado o livro. Manel thinks to-have-Agr his friends taken the book 'Manel thinks his friends to have taken the book.' b. *O Manel pensa os amigos terem levado o livro. In (142), the C in the ECM complement must be overt because Japanese is a language with obligatory overt verb raising. For (143), Raposo (1987) proposes that the infinitive verb in European Portuguese must overtly raise to C to assign Case to the DP in [Spec, I] under government. Given condition (5) and the independent evidence that the matrix verb raises overtly in this language, we can account for the obligatoriness of the head-movement in the embedded clause in (143) in the same way as the embedded V2 in German.

76


2.7 Wh-Movement and Null Cs 2.7.1 Null Cs in Interrogative Clauses We are claiming that the null C must affix to the closest overt element ccommanding it. The element in question is sometimes the selecting head and sometimes the raised clausemate verb. Under the definition of 'closeness' in terms of c-command, we predict that if there is no overt verb raising to C and some element fills its Spec at a point in the derivation, the null C ought to affix to the occupant of the Spec, since it is the closest overt element that c-commands it. I now propose that this state of affairs indeed takes place at least in an interrogative clause headed by the null C.43 Given this proposal, the wellformedness of (144a) is accommodated without stipulating that the interrogative null C is not affixal. Since the null C in (144a) can attach to the wh-phrase in its Spec, it does not have to find its host elsewhere, so neither the prohibition against attracting traces nor the prohibition against lowering is violated, as in (144b): (144) a. [ What [ C( ) [IP to do in such a situation]] is not clear to anybody, b. [CP *(That) [IP John would fail Mary]] was believed. This proposal not only eliminates potential exceptions to the hypothesis that the null C is affixal. It also brings some interesting consequences. Note, first, that the wh-movement in (144a) is obligatory. This fact is somewhat surprising under Chomsky's (1995) feature movement theory. He proposes that the essential of the movement is the movement of formal features necessary for the relevant feature checking and that the movement of categories or larger units is a mere result of what he calls the 'generalized pied-piping' forced by some extralinguistic requirement on the PF side (hence, LF movements are 'featureonly' movements). Under the feature movement theory, even in the absence of overt wh-movement, the uninterpretable strong feature of the null interrogative C can be checked against the raised formal features of a wh-phrase and the derivation should converge at both LF and PF. Then, it remains unclear why overt wh-movement must be movement of wh-phrases (including phonological features) rather than just relevant formal features. In the framework of our theory, we can give a partial answer to this question. The 'generalized pied-piping' is forced because movement of just formal features to the checking domain of the null C leaves the null C as a dangling affix (we will return to the obvious question of what happens if the interrogative CP occur at the complement of a verb). 2.7.2

Null Cs in the Complement of Tough Adjectives

Second, given the qualification of 'overtness' in the statement about the possible set of the hosts of the null C, it is predicted that the null C cannot affix to a null operator (OP), even if the latter fills the former's Spec. One way to check this


77

prediction is to look at the tough construction. The tough construction is usually analyzed as one in which the tough adjectives select a CP in which a null OP moves to its Spec. If this is correct, the null C in the complement of a tough-class adjective cannot satisfy its affixal property in its maximal projection (= CP), and it must adjoin to the selecting adjective, which is the closest overt element here. The structure of (145a) will then be as in (145b): (145) a. John is easy to please. b. John is < c+easy [cp OP [c. tc ... top]] Given (145b), we predict that the tough adjective cannot themselves be nominalized, because attachment of the null C to the adjective followed by movement of the formed complex to Nz leads to a violation of condition (5). As predicted, (146a) is ill-formed: (146) a. *John's easiness/difficulty to please (Chomsky 1970) b. John's [NzP [[ +easy to please tj -]]]]] AA +ness] [AP tA [CP OP1 [C' tC [ PRO C IP IJJJJ J

J

L

r

In (146b), the formed complex word [[ +easy ]+ness] violates condition (5). The ill-formedness of (146a) leads me to modify the earlier statement that all the control verbs can be nominalized. The tough complement is a kind of control complement, with the nontrivial difference that it is CP headed by the null C. Thus, in order to accommodate the tough case, the correct generalization should be that all the control verbs that select an IP complement can be nominalized. 2.7.3 Wh-Movement through [Spec, C] and Null Cs A third prediction concerns successive cyclic movement through [Spec, C]. If the null C is universally affixal and the Last Resort Condition (LRC) is appropriately defined so as to allow (or require) movement through an intermediate [Spec, C] in order to support the null affixal C, then the embedded subject of an ECM complement, if wh-moved, will be allowed to move through the embedded [Spec, C] and 'pick up' the null affixal C in conformity with the LRC. Then, we predict that Romance languages should allow the ECM construction if the embedded subject undergo wh-movement. This is indeed the case: (147) a. *Je crois [CP C [1P Jean etre le plus intelligent de tous]]. I believe Jean to-be the most intelligent of all 'I believe Jean to be most intelligent of all.' (Kayne 1984:chapter 5) b. Quel gargon, crois tu [CP t i C [IP ti etre le plus intelligent de tous]]? which boy believe you to-be the most intelligent of all 'Which boy do you believe to be most intelligent of all?'

78


Kayne's (1984) account of these facts is as follows: the subject in (147a) cannot receive a Case in the embedded [Spec, I], since the ECM clause in French is CP, and the pair of CP and IP blocks government of the embedded [Spec, I] by the matrix V; however, the moved wh-phrase in (147b) can receive a Case when it stops by the [Spec, C], which is a position governed by the matrix verb. Obviously, such an account cannot be maintained in the government-free theory of the minimalist program (see Watanabe 1996 for both conceptual and empirical problems with the government theory). Given the affixal property of the null C, we can provide an alternative account for the given facts: the affixal property of the null C is satisfied only in (147b) because the null C can affix to the wh-phrase that moves through its Spec. The derivation will be as shown below:44,45

This derivation is licit, since every step included in it satisfies the Last Resort Condition (LRC). On the other hand, if we assume that the movement of a nonwh subject just in order to support the null C violates the LRC, the null C in (147a) cannot satisfy its affixal property, and hence the derivation crashes at PP. Given the successive cyclic movement analysis, we can also account for the following contrast, pointed out in Chomsky and Lasnik (1977:478): (149) a. *John believes, sincerely t-t [CP C [IPBill to be the best man]]. b. Who, does John believe; sincerely ts [CP t\ C [IP t, to be the best man]]. Since the ECM complement is CP headed by the null affixal C, the ill-formedness of (149a) is due to a violation of condition (5), if we assume that the verb believes which precedes the VP-adverb has been raised and adjoined to v. On the other hand, the same verb movement does not induce a violation of condition (5) in (149b), since the null C can satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the whsubject who that moves through its Spec. In short, (149b) is well-formed for the same reason as (147b). As Daiko Takahashi points out to me, if my account of the contrast between (147a) and (147b) and the one between (149a) and (149b) is correct, we predict further that the ECM construction in Romance languages cannot be embedded under the tough construction, since we are assuming that the tough construction involves a movement of the null OP to the Spec of the embedded CP and that the null OP cannot be the host of the null C. With this in mind, consider the following facts in Italian and French:46 (150) a. *?Cet homme est facile a croire [etre intelligent]. b. *?Quest'uomo e facile da ritenere [essere intelligente]. This man is easy to believe to be intelligent.' (Cinque 1990:107)


79

In my system, (150a-b) are ruled out because of the failure to satisfy the affixal property of the null C, because the null C in the complement of the ECM verbs in these languages cannot affix to the null OP, and it cannot adjoin to the ECM verbs, either, since it raises overtly.48 The sentences in (151) stand in a clear contrast with those in (150): (151) a. (?)Cet homme est facile a croire [intelligent]. b. (?)Quest' uomo e facile da ritenere [intelligente]. 'This man is easy to believe intelligent.' (ibid.: 108) That (151a) and (151b) are basically well-formed is also expected if we assume that the small clause complement of croire/ritenere is not CP. In this subsection, I have argued that given the affixal property of the null C and its satisfaction by the closest overt element, we can subsume overt whmovement to/through a [Spec, C] under a natural interpretation of the LRC and solve a problem with the feature movement theory. We need to note, however, that the LRC must be defined so as to prohibit a wh-phrase to move to a [Spec, C] just in order to satisfy the affixal property of the null C and to stop there. If that were possible, the ECM construction in French would be ruled in without overt wh-movement. This prohibition is reminiscent of the paradigm of past participle agreement in French. In French, movement of a direct object through [Spec, v] is required in case of passivization, as shown by the obligatoriness of participial agreement, though the direct object of a transitive verb cannot raise to [Spec, v] in overt syntax just in order to mediate the participial agreement, resulting in the SOV order. Presumably, what blocks these movements is the necessity to form a 'perfect chain' in Collins's (1997) sense. 2.7.4 Interrogative Clauses in Complement Positions We have argued for the following proposition in consideration of the dependency of certain constructions on the presence of overt wh-movement: (152)

The null C can satisfy its affixal property by the wh-phrase moved to its Spec.

The statement in (152) entails that the null C does not have to adjoin to the element that fills its Spec at a point in the derivation. Suppose that the null C occurs in the complement of a verb. In this case, our theory does not preclude the possibility that the null C satisfies its affixal property by adjoining to the selecting verb (if the verb remains in situ, as in English). However, this is an undesirable consequence for both empirical and conceptual reasons. It is undesirable on empirical grounds, because overt wh-movement is obligatory in English, wherever the interrogative clause occurs, and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no language in which overt wh-movement takes place optionally only when the

80


interrogative clause occurred at the complement of a verb. It is undesirable on conceptual grounds, because it would induce computational complexity. In the minimalist program of linguistic theory, the language faculty is defined as a computational system that produces a single convergent derivation from a single numeration. However, the computational system would produce two convergent derivations from a single numeration, if the null C in an interrogative complement clause could satisfy its affixal property by the selecting verb. Suppose that a derivation has reached the stage at which the C in a complement clause that has a strong feature is merged with IP. The next step of the derivation can proceed in either of the following two ways: (a) the C attracts an overt wh-phrase to its Spec, checking off its own strong wh-feature, satisfying its own affixal property by adjoining to the wh-phrase, and then the CP is merged with the selecting verb; (b) the C attracts just a wh-feature in a w h-phrase that it ccommands, checking off its own strong wh-feature, and then the CP is merged with the selecting verb, after which the null C adjoins to the verb. I claimed that the feature-only movement involved in the second derivation is blocked because the phonetically unrealized wh-feature cannot support the null affixal C and there remains a dangling affix at PF, which causes a derivation to crash. However, the derivation could be saved if the null interrogative C could adjoin to the selecting verb. Hence, two convergent derivations are obtained from a single numeration. The origin of the problem in question is that we use 'can' rather than 'must' in the statement in (152). However, we cannot avoid this problem by replacing 'can' by 'must', since the null C satisfies its affixal property by adjoining to the selecting head elsewhere. In order to resolve this tension, we propose the following general condition on morphological licensing: (153) The morphological requirement on any category must be satisfied within its maximal projection, if possible. Condition (153) is reminiscent of Chomsky's (1995:234) condition on strong features: a strong features of a category a must be checked off before it is embedded in a category not headed by . It does not matter for our purposes whether (153) can be equated with the condition on strong features. One clear consequence of (153) is that when the null interrogative C can satisfy its affixal property by attracting an overt wh-phrase to its Spec, the possibility of attracting only the wh-feature to the checking domain of the C, merging the CP with the selecting verb, and adjoining the null C to the verb is excluded, because in this case the morphological requirement on the null C is satisfied outside of its maximal projection. The account we have given to the null C in a noninterrogative complement remains intact, since in this case the C does not have a strong feature that can attract an overt phrase to its Spec. In this case, (153) does not work, and the morphological requirement on the null C may be satisfied outside of its maximal projection.


81

2.7.5 Deriving Cheng's (1991) Generalization Neither (152) nor (153) predicts anything when an interrogative clause is headed by an overt (nonaffixal) C such as an overt Q-particle, since there is no need for supporting the overt nonaffixal C. Consequently, there may or may not be overt wh-movement in such a language. However, there is a strong tendency that overt wh-movement does not take place when an interrogative clause is headed by an overt Q-particle. Consider the following sentence in Japanese. Japanese has an overt realization of wh-particle, glossed as Q, and it lacks an overt wh-movement: (154)

John-wa Mary-ga nani-o katta ka siri-tagatta. John-Top Mary-Norn what-Acc bought Q know-wanted 'John wanted to know what Mary bought.'

The well-formedness of (154) in the absence of overt wh-movement is compatible with my proposal that overt movement of a wh-phrase takes place to satisfy the affixal property of the null interrogative C and with Chomsky's proposal that, for the checking of the strong feature of the interrogative C, the movement of whfeatures in a wh-phrase suffices.48 However, the fact is not so simple that we can correlate the presence of an overt Q-particle and the absence of overt wh-movement, since in many wh-in-situ languages the interrogative clauses are/can be headed by the null C. Cheng (1991) proposes the generalization that all wh-in-situ languages have a particle for yes-no question, which means that if a language has an overt particle for yes-no question, it may lack both an overt particle for wh-question and overt wh-movement.49She shows that at least twelve languages, including Chinese, Hindi, Indonesian, and Turkish, fall within this generalization. At first sight, the existence of these languages appears to undermine my conception of overt wh-movement. However, there is a way out of this problem without making the entire theory at stake. I will reinterpret Cheng's explanation of her generalization in the framework of the minimalist theory. Before implementing it, however, let us briefly summarize her proposal. She proposes the Clause Typing Hypothesis, which roughly states that every interrogative clause must be so typed either by the existence of a whparticle in C or overt wh-movement to [Spec, C]. She then argues that every language with an overt particle for yes-no question also has a wh-particle in C, whether or not it is phonetically realized, and hence it need not be typed by overt wh-movement (in fact, the movement option is blocked by some economy principle), whereas every language without an overt particle for yes-no question also lacks a wh-particle in C, and hence overt wh-movement to [Spec, C] is required in such a language in order to type the clause as interrogative. In the minimalist framework, her proposals can be reinterpreted as follows: on the one hand, the interrogative (null) C in every language that has an overt wh-movement lacks an interpretable (semantic) wh-feature (call it ) and has only an uninterpretable (strong) formal feature (call it ); on the

82


other hand, the interrogative C in every language that has an overt particle for yes-no question has a but lacks a , because the overt particle for yes-no question no doubt has a but lacks a . If a C head has , it needs to be checked off, and therefore a wh-feature must move to its checking domain. The movement must be overt if the C head is null, because the overt wh-word must support the affixal property of the null affixal C. On the other hand, since the need not be checked off, the LRP prevents it from attracting the formal features in a wh-phrase or the entire wh-word. This view is compatible with the claim that wh- words in Japanese (a language that has an overt particle for yes-no question) do not have inherent quantificational force (Nishigauchi 1990). Since the C can be qualified as a scope marker, the wh-words in such a language need not themselves have inherent quantificational force but may function as indefinite expressions licensed by unselective binding. On the other hand, since a wh-phrase in English has inherent quantificational force, it must move and bind its trace as a variable. In other words, interpretable wh-features on the C-head and on the moved wh-phrase are in a complementary distribution. Under this reinterpretation of Cheng's explanation, we are ready to provide a solution to the question why the null C with the does not fail to satisfy its affixal property even without overt wh-movement to its Spec. If neither a wh-phrase nor the wh-feature in it is allowed to move in this type of language, another way is sought to satisfy the affixal property of the null C without violating (153). If the null C has a strong V-feature that can attract the clausemate verb, this option is unambiguously chosen, as in (155a). Otherwise, there is no way for the null C to satisfy its affixal property in its maximal projection, and therefore, the null C is adjoined to the selecting verb, as in (155b):

In any case, what is important is that the null C in an interrogative clause can satisfy its affixal property without attracting an overt wh-phrase if it has . It is hard to determine which option is chosen in each language, given Greenberg's (1963) observation that wh-in-situ languages tend to have a clausefinal C, because, in rigidly head-final languages, the word order does not tell us whether or not the verb is raised to C. Even for such a language, however, there is a way to determine whether or not the verb undergoes overt raising. Thus, Koizumi (1995) proposes a coordination test showing that Japanese has overt Vto-C raising (cf. chapter 2, section 2.4.4). It is equally worth exploring a language in which CP is head-final but VP is head-initial or a language in which VP is head-final but CP is head-initial. In such a language, if there is overt V-to-C movement, it should be reflected on the word order. Anyway, if there is an independent way to find out where the verb is in overt syntax, and if a language has neither overt wh-movement nor overt particle for wh-question, the prediction


83

we make is that the language should have overt V-to-C movement (i.e., German type) or should not have overt verb raising at all (i.e., Chinese type), whereas it cannot manifest overt V-to-I movement without manifesting overt I-to-C movement (i.e. French type). I leave justification of this prediction for future research. 2.7.6 Null Cs in the Root Clauses The logic of our approach to the null C forces us to make a specific claim about the C in the root clause in non-V2 languages like English. Since it has not its Spec filled by any overt element, it is dangled there, and the derivation would crash at PF. Contrary to this expectation, (156) is well-formed: (156)

John left.

The well-formedness of (156) suggests that the null C does not exist at the point when the structure of (156) undergoes Spell-Out and is split off into the PF component. However, there is good reason to believe that the declarative C, which is one of the force indicators, must be present for interpretation at LF. Chomsky (1995:292) suggests that a null variant of the declarative C can be inserted in a root clause covertly and that covert insertion is necessary on economy grounds, if Procrastinate applies to Merge as well as Move. If we admitted the LF insertion of Interrogative C, we would incorrectly predict that English need not move a wh-phrase in overt syntax: (157) * John bought what? However, unlike in (156), the interrogative C has a strong Q-feature that attracts a feature. Chomsky (1995:292) argues that no strong feature can be selected from the lexicon and introduced into syntax after Spell-Out. Given this argument, the ill-formedness of (157) is not problematic for us. If the prohibition against LF selection of strong features does not hold universally but there may be languages in which the C with a strong Q-feature may be selected in LF, then we predict that in the languages overt wh-movement need not take place in the root clause. In an embedded clause, on the other hand, the C must be merged with IP before the IP is merged with the matrix verb, because of the Extension Condition (Chomsky 1993). Thus, we should have a root/embedded asymmetry such that overt wh-movement is forced in an embedded clause, whereas it remains optional in the root clause. This prediction is borne out in French:50 (158) a. De quoi a parle Jean? 'About what did Jean speak?'

84

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections b. II a parle de quoi? (Rizzi 1990:47) c. Je ne sais pas de quoi Jean a parle. 'I don't know about what Jean spoke.' d.*Je ne sais pas Jean a parle de quoi.

Since, in (158b), C is not introduced into syntax before Spell-Out, no problem of dangling affix arises here. In (158c-d), on the other hand, the embedded C cannot be merged with IP (at LF) after IP is merged with the matrix V in overt syntax, because of the Extension Condition. If C exists in overt syntax, it must be supported by some overt element. For reasons we have discussed in section 7.4, the only possible host of the null C here is a moved whphrase. Hence, overt wh-movement as in (158c) is forced and (158d) is excluded. The asymmetry between (158b) and (158d) is related to the fact that while French does not have the overt C in the matrix clause, it must have one in any embedded clause. For the latter case, we have argued that the null C is precluded in an embedded clause because French is an obligatory overt verb raising language and there is no option for the null C to adjoin to the selecting verb, due to condition (5). Now, we have two root/non-root asymmetries. The first is the absence/presence of an overt indicative complementizer, and the second the optionality/obligatoriness of overt wh-movement.51 We may add to these the fact that the Aux-to-Comp in Italian is quite frequent in certain embedded clauses but is not permitted in the matrix clause (Rizzi 1982). These kinds of root/nonroot asymmetries are familiar in natural languages, and, as far as the minimalist program of linguistic theory accommodates them by the requirement that Merge apply only to the root clause, the latter requirement should be an irreducible component in the theory. 2.7.7 Null Cs in Relative Clauses We argued in section 7.3 that the null C in an ECM complement in French has its affixal property satisfied only by the wh-phrase that moves through its Spec on its way to the matrix [Spec, C]. This analysis has an important implication for the analysis of relativization. There have been two analyses proposed for the derivation of relativization: one is the null operator raising analysis (Chomsky 1977), and the other is the head promotion analysis (Vergnaud 1974):

If the licensing of the French ECM construction by wh-movement is on the right track, we are forced to choose the analysis in (159b) over the one in (159a), since the French main verb can take an ECM complement when the subject of the complement has undergone relativization:

Verb Raising and Null Complementizers (160)

85

la femmei que on dit [CP t\ C [IP t{ etre malade]] 'the woman who they say to be sick'

Given the analysis in (159b), the null C in (160) satisfies its affixal property by adjoining to the moved relative head, which is overt, as in (161a). However, the null C in the ECM clause cannot affix to a null OP, as in (161b), since null elements cannot support an affix. Neither the overt C que nor the overt subject on is of use, since the long-distance head-movement is ruled out by the Head Movement Constraint (HMC):

Hence, we conclude that the head promotion analysis in (159b) should be the correct one.52 On this conclusion, in what follows, we discuss some problems with obligatory complementizers in relative clauses in English. Consider, first, the following contrast: (162) a. the man (who) John likes b. the man who likes Mary c. *the man likes Mary (in the same sense as (162b)) Let us specifically adopt Kayne's (1994) version of the promotion analysis, according to which (162a), with who, is derived by the movement of who man to [Spec, C] plus further movement of man to the Spec of who, which presumably heads D. Then, the null C in the relative clause will satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the DP man who before the CP is merged with the D headed by the. The well-formedness of (162a) in the absence of an overt operator also straightforwardly follows from our analysis of relativization. The relativization in this case is analyzed as raising of man to the Spec of CP:

Given this analysis, the null C in (163) can adjoin to man in its Spec. Hence, the optionality of the overt C in (162a) is not surprising. However, if we apply the same analysis to (162b-c), we would expect (162b) and (162c) to be equally wellformed, contrary to fact. Note that the contrast between (162a) and (162b-c) is not a matter of subject-object asymmetry. First, the embedded subject can undergo relativization even without an overt C:

86 (164)

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections the man (whOj) everyone believes ti likes Mary

Second, as pointed out in Pesetsky (1982), the counterpart of (162c) is wellformed in languages that allow null subjects: (165) a. Chi'e facceuda ex tocca a noi. this is a matter does not concern (to) us (15th-century Italian) This is the matter that does not concern us.' (Rizzi 1990:71) b. There is a lord will hear you play tonight. (16th-century English) (Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, cited from Boskovic 1995:46) Rizzi (1982) argues that null subject languages allow the option of basegenerating the overt subject in a VP-adjoined position, and the canonical subject position is filled by an expletive pro. Rizzi's idea can be modified without undermining his essential point as follows: null subject languages allow the option of not moving the subject to [Spec, I] but leaving it in [Spec, V]. Exploiting this idea, Boskovic (1995) attempts to rule in (165a-b) and rule out (162c) by the Ban on Superfluous Steps (BSS), which Saito and Murasugi (1993) propose to prevent too short a movement. Specifically, BSS is formulated as follows: (166) The Ban on Superfluous Steps: a. A chain link must be at least of length 1. b. A chain link from A to B is of length n iff there are n "nodes" (X, X', XP, but not segments of these) that dominate A and exclude B. Furthermore, Boskovic assumes, following Chomsky (1977), that relativization involves movement of a null OP. He also assumes that any clause without an overt C-related element (e.g., complementizer or an operator) is IP, and that the landing site of a null OP may be either CP-Spec or an IP-adjoined position. On the basis of these assumptions, he attributes the ill-formedness of (162c) to the BSS. Assuming the BSS, consider structures (167a-b), which Boskovic assigns to (162a) nad (162c), respectively, in the absence of an overt C-related element:

In (167a), the movement of OPi crosses at least one maximal projection, that is, VP, and hence it does not violate BSS. (165a-b) are ruled in for the same reasons since here, the null OP is moved from [Spec, V] to [Spec, C] across VP and IP. In (167b), on the other hand, the same movement crosses just a segment of IP and violates BSS. Hence, it is ruled out. Boskovic's explanation is crucially dependent on the assumption that the that-less, finite clause is IP, which we cannot adopt in our theory. We have explained the limited distribution of the null C across languages under the


87

implicit assumption that every finite clause is headed by C, even if the head is morphologically unrealized." Furthermore, we are assuming, unlike Boskovic, a promotion analysis of relativization, according to which the derivation of (162b) must involve not the movement of a null OP to an IP-adjoined position but the movement of the relative head man to [Spec, C], since the D that introduces a relative clause always selects CP as its complement. Then, the BSS is not violated even in the absence of an overt C since the movement of man crosses IP. This leaves the ill-formedness of (162c) unexplained, though. Hence, in what follows we pursue a different line of approach, which is essentially based on Rizzi's (1990) idea. On the basis of his own analysis of the Comp-trace effects in English and its absence in French, Rizzi (1990) claims that, like the French qui that introduces a finite relative clause and the Norwegian som that introduces an interrogative or relative clause, the English that which introduces a subject relative clause as in (162b) is a special agreeing form that requires the clausemate subject in its Spec at some point in a derivation.54 (168) a. La chose qui [t est arrivee] est terrible. The thing that has happened is terrible.' (ibid.:66) b. La dame que/*qui [vous demandez t] est deja partie. The lady that you inquired has already left.' c. La chose que/*qui [ils croient qui [t est arrivee]] est terrible. 'The thing that they believe to have happened is terrible.' (169) a. Jeg lurer pa hvem *(som) [t ser mest suensk ut]. I wonder who that looks most Swedish out b. Jeg lurer pa hvem (*som) [du liker t best]. I wonder who that you like best c. Jeg lurer pa hvem (*som) du synes [t ser mest]. I wonder who that you think looks most (Taraldsen 1978:633-634) Rizzi argues that since these special agreeing complementizers can properly govern the Spec of its complement, that is, [Spec, I], the trace in the subject position can satisfy the ECP. Although Rizzi's ECP-based account is no longer tenable in the current minimalist framework that has discarded the government theory, we can carry over his idea that there are overt C°s that must enter into Spec-Head agreement relation with the clausemate subject. Then, the fact that that is obligatory in English relative clauses only when the subject in the highest clause is extracted, as in (170), will receive the same explanation as the parallel facts in French (168) and Norwegian (169): (170) a. the man *(that) likes Mary (cf. (162b)) b. the man (that) John saw yesterday c. the man (that) everyone believes likes Mary (cf. (164))


88

Importantly, the fact that that is optionally possible in (170b-c) as well shows not that the agreement-inducing that in (170a) may optionally agree with other elements but that English has two types of that, one agreement-inducing and the other non-agreement-inducing, which happen to have the same morphology. As Ogawa (1996a) shows, this is the more familiar case crosslinguistically. Thus, Welsh, Irish, Rumanian, Modern Greek, West Flemish, Hebrew, Japanese, Brazilian Portuguese, Old English, and so on do not appear to have the Comp-trace effect on the extraction of the clausemate subject, though these languages clearly do not manifest a special morphology when the clausemate subject is wh-moved. French, Norwegian, and a few other languages use a special complementizer in the relevant case, though they are marked cases. Although our argument in this section retains much the same level of descriptive adequacy as Rizzi's, we stop the discussion of this issue here, since pursuing it further would take us far afield from our main theme in this section: the licensing of the null C by overt wh-movement. Readers who are concerned with the issue more deeply are referred to Rizzi (1990), Law (1991), Takahashi (1994), Boskovic (1995), Watanabe (1996), Browning (1996), and references cited therein.55 2.7.8

A Summary

In this section, we have mainly argued for the satisfaction of the null affixal C by overt wh-movement. In conjunction with the conclusion reached in section 4, the argument in this section reinforces our proposal that the null C is universally affixal and must be supported by the closest overt element. More specifically, we have argued in this section that for an interrogative clause whose C head has a [-Interpretable] wh-feature, the overt wh-phrase raised to [Spec, C] counts as the closest overt element for the null affixal C. Assuming with Ormazabal (1995) that ECM complements are CP, we have provided the same lines of explanation to the fact that the possibility of the ECM construction in Romance languages depends on the presence of the overt wh-movement of the subject in the complement of the ECM verbs. Specifically, we have argued that the null C in the ECM complement, which cannot attach to the selecting verb in these languages, must have its affixal property satisfied by the wh-phrase that moves though its Spec on its way to the Spec of an interrogative C. As for the null C in the interrogative clauses in wh-in-situ languages, it has been proposed that it has a [+Interpretable] wh-feature that does not trigger whmovement at all and has its affixal property licensed by either adjoining to the selecting verb or being adjoined by the raised clausemate verb. We have argued that neither of these options is available in languages whose C head has a [-Interpretable] wh-feature, because the computational system seeks to reduce the computational complexity to the minimum. In this way, we have provided a minimalist account for Cheng's Generalization, which states that languages that


89

have an overt Q-particle for yes-no question do not have to have overt whmovement. As for the null C in the root clauses, we have suggested that it may be introduced into syntax after Spell-Out (cf. Chomsky 1995), and hence is free from the requirement on the null affixes imposed only on the PF-side. Finally, we have suggested that the obligatoriness of the overt C that when the subject in the highest finite clause is relativized is accounted for along Rizzi's (1990) lines. 2.8 Null Complementizers in Raising Complements On the results we obtained in section 7.3, in this section we focus on the distribution of the raising predicates in the environments of overt verb raising. One surprising property of the raising predicates is that, unlike the ECM verbs, they can take an infinitival complement in French, though they cannot be nominalized in English: (171) a. The situation seems to be aggravated at Lebanon. b. *The situation's semblance to be aggravated at Lebanon c. La situation semble s'etre aggravee au Liba. (cf. Chomsky 1970) If the raising complement is CP, it should not be available in obligatory overt verb raising languages like French. On the other hand, if a raising predicate takes IP as its complement (as assumed in the LGB framework), we cannot rule out its nominalization by condition (5), since the configuration is void of the null affixal C. The parallelism between clauses and noun phrases breaks here. This appears to be problematic for both the syntactic nominalization hypothesis and our theory of null affixes. In this section, I argue that the raising complement is CP and that it is permitted in languages like French, since UG allows a derivation in which the raised subject NP moves through the embedded [Spec, C] on its way to the matrix subject position (a derivation similar to the wh-movement of the subject of the ECM complement). On this reasoning, the ill-formedness of (171 b) can no longer be attributed to the existence of the null C. Rather, I ascribe it to the presence of the Genitive Case marker 's. 2.8.1 The CP-Status of Raising Complements Let us first demonstrate the CP-status of raising complements. The argument comes from the (im)possibility of NPI licensing. It is well known that negative polarity items (NPI) must be syntactically c-commanded by a negative element, rather than simply placed in the scope of an inherently negative verb. Consider the following contrast:

90


(172) a. *John denied anything. b. John denied that he had won anything. On the basis of this contrast, Progovac (1988) and Laka (1990) argue that the CP complement of this class of inherently negative verbs has an element that takes care of NPI licensing. Specifically, Progovac postulates an operator in [Spec, C] and Laka a negatively specified C. Given their claims, (172b) is well-formed, since the negative element syntactically c-commands the NPI, whereas (172a) is ill-formed, since it lacks the same NPI licenser. On the basis of this argument, den Dikken (1995:11) proposes that the following contrast is accounted for in the same way by assuming that the raising complement is CP that can host some negative element in its projection: (173) a. *John is uncertain of anything. b. John is uncertain to win anything. Let us suppose, following den Dikken, that the raising complement is CP (headed by the null C) and, following Laka, that the negative element, if any, heads the CP. Then, it might be possible to rule out (171b) in the following way: if the null C affixes to the raising verb, and the V+C complex further raises to Nz, the resulting word violates condition (5). However, this account incorrectly rules out (171c) as well, since French is an obligatory overt verb raising language. Therefore, let us explore another possibility. Recall my conclusion, reached in section 7.3, that the affixal property of the null C can be satisfied without attaching it to the selecting head if it adjoins to the moved wh-phrase that fills its Spec at a point in the derivation. This adjunction is permissible since we are assuming that the null C can affix to any overt element which c-commands it from the closest position. Now, let us propose that NP-movement across CP makes the same steps. Then, the derivation of (171a) and (171c) is schematized as in(174):56

In this analysis, even in the presence of obligatory overt raising of the matrix verb, condition (5) is not violated since the null C does not have to adjoin to the raised verb. On the other hand, the failure of the raising verbs/adjectives to be nominalized can be accounted for by assuming, following Lieber (1992), that 's is a phrasal affix that heads a DP and moves and attaches to a nominal maximal projection that fills its Spec. If this is correct, the internal structure of the Genitive NP John's in (175a) is as shown in (175b). (175) a. * John's certainty/likelihood to win the prize


91

Condition (5) rules out (175b), since it is defined so as to apply not only at a word level but also at a phrasal level as far as the outermost element, 'Z' in (5), is a derivational affix. 2.8.2 NP-Movement through [Spec, C] It is not the case that this derivation of the raising construction does not have a potential problem. Two questions that might arise here are as follows: (a) Can NP-movement cross a CP-boundary?; (b) Is the NP raising through [Spec, C] licit in view of the Uniformity Condition on Movement (UCM), which prohibits Amovement through an A'-position? Since the [Spec, C], which is an intermediate position, is an A'-position and the [Spec, T], which is the landing site, is an Aposition, the derivation as in (174) violates the UCM. Let us first answer the first question. The answer to this question is negative, in the current minimalist program of linguistic theory. In this theory, the NP-movement of the embedded subject takes place, since the strong EPP-feature of T must be checked before Spell-Out and the moved NP/DP is the closest element that can check the strong EPP-feature. Then, NP-movement can in principle cross a CP-boundary as far as the CP lacks a D-feature that can check the strong EPP-feature of the matrix T, which seems to be the case with the raising complements (cf. *That John is sick seems). It then follows that the NPmovement across a CP-boundary is permitted in (174c). Now, let us discuss the second question. The UCM was originally proposed to prohibit A-movement from the subject position in the control complement, which is otherwise filled by PRO, to the subject position in the matrix clause, through [Spec, C], an A'-position. The derivation in (176c) illustrates this point. (176) a. It is illegal [PRO to enter this theater]. b. *Teenagers are illegal to enter this theater. c. Teenagers; are illegal [CP t [c. C [t, to enter this theater]]]. In the minimalist theory, however, the ill-formedness of (176b) can be attributed to a different reason than the UCM violation. Chomsky and Lasnik (1991) propose that PRO, as well as overt NPs, requires a Case in order to satisfy the Visibility Condition (Chomsky 1986a), though the Case in question is a special Case differing from the one assigned to an overt NP, which they call 'Null Case'. Boskovic (1996) argues that given the 'Null Case' hypothesis, (176b) can be ruled out in violation of the Last Resort Condition (LRC). (176a) suggests that the embedded subject position of the adjective illegal is a Case position: it is assigned the Null Case by T. Then, the movement from the Case position to the matrix subject position, which is another Case position, violates the LRC for the same reasons as the derivation of the following sentence:

92 (111)

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections *John( seems [(that) ti is smart].57

The UCM is no longer necessary to rule out (176b). Since there is no other motivation for the condition, it should be eliminated from grammar. On the basis of the discussion of (176a-b), Boskovic (1996) argues that the control complement can be CP or IP. He then concludes, on independent grounds, that the control complement must be IP. I adopt his conclusion, though I do not adopt his argument for this conclusion, since there is a reason to suppose that the raising complement is CP. Hence, let us continue to assume that it is CP, even in the absence of any overt complementizer. Then, it follows from the elimination of the UCM that the derivation in (174) may be allowed in principle, since the embedded subject position here is not a Case position. In fact, the movement of the embedded subject through the embedded [Spec, C] may be required in an interpretation of Last Resort since it satisfies the morphological property of the embedded C, which is an affix (Chomsky 1995).58Then, there should be no problem with the derivation in (174). So far, I have shown the conceptual basis that the NP raised from the embedded subject position to the matrix one can move through the [Spec, C] in the raising complement. We look at a piece of empirical evidence for this successive cyclic movement in the next subsection. 2.8.3 The Complement of Allege-class Verbs In English, there is a class of verbs that cannot take an ECM complement unless its embedded subject is raised out of the complement: (178) a. *He alleged Melvin to be a pimp, b. Who did they allege to be a pimp? Other verbs belonging to this class are wager, affirm, announce, scream, and maintain. The paradigm in (178) is reminiscent of the French ECM verbs we discussed in section 7.3. However, the allege-class verbs and the French ECM verbs differ in at least three respects. First, unlike the French case, the allegeclass verbs produce a well-formed sentence even when the embedded subject is passivized to the matrix subject position: (179) a. Melvin was alleged to be a pimp. (Postal 1974:324) b. *L'ame a ete demontree etre immortelle. (Ura l993) the soul has been demonstrated to be immortal The soul has been demonstrated to be immortal.' Second, as Pesetsky (1992) observes, in contrast to other ECM verbs in English, which do not assign Agent 9 -role to their subject, the verbs belonging to this


93

class obligatorily assign Agent -role to their subject. No such thematic restriction is imposed on the French ECM verbs. Third, unlike the allege-class verbs in English, the French ECM verbs can also take a control complement: (180) a. *John alleged RRO to have kissed Mary. (Pesetsky 1992:1135) b. Je crois PRO avoir fait une erreur. (Kayne 1984:chapter 5) I believe to-have made a mistake 'I believe myself to have made a mistake.' In this section, I show that all these facts are explained by the interaction of general principles of grammar and what we have said so far about the licensing of the null affixal C. Among the three distinctive properties, the second property of the allegeclass verbs, that is, they are limited to agentive verbs, is suggestive. Hence, let us consider this property first. Note that we are assuming Chomsky's (1995:chapter 4) v-VP structure, in which v is the assigner of the Agent 9 -role, though we have departed from his original idea in assuming that English Vs do not always raise to v in overt syntax. At the same time, we have seen two classes of English verbs that have to raise overtly to a higher V head position in a VP-shell structure, that is, the suggest-class verbs and the ditransitive verbs. I now propose a similar derivation of the allege-class verbs. Specifically, I propose that the allege-class verbs undergo overt head-movement, but to v, unlike the two classes of verbs. Given this proposal, the contrast between (178a) and (178b) is ascribed to the same reason that Romance languages do not allow the ECM construction unless the embedded subject undergoes overt wh-movement.59 Similarly, if I am correct in claiming that the passivized NP can move through the embedded [Spec, C] on its way to the matrix [Spec, T] and picks up the null affixal C, in conformity with the LRC, then the well-formedness of (179a) receives a straightforward account. Apparently problematic is the fact that the French counterpart (179b) is out. However, we relate its ill-formedness to the well-formedness of (180b). This fact shows that the embedded subject position of the ECM verbs in French is a (Null) Case position. Then, given Boskovic's proposal, the passivization in (179b) violates the LRC, regardless of whether the passivized NP moves through the embedded [Spec, C]. By contrast, the passivization in (179a) does not violate the LRC, since the embedded subject position in the complement of the allege-class verbs is not a Case position. Hence, (179a) is ruled in even if the selecting verb is overtly raised to v. 2.9 Some Loose Ends 2.9.1 Placement of Modifiers In section 5, I suggested an analysis of nominalization as syntactic affixation on the basis of the fact that neither the French main verbs nor the English derived nominals can take a finite complement clause headed by the null C and the fact

94


that German, which permits V-to-C raising in an embedded clause, allows a finite clause headed by the null C in the complement of both verbs and derived nominals in the presence of the V-to-C raising. Our explanation of the (apparent) V/N asymmetry with respect to the licensability of null Cs is preferred over the ECP-based approach to it, since we can dispense with the stipulative distinction between V and N in terms of the ability to license empty heads (see chapter 3 for more consequences of the syntactic nominalization hypothesis). By now, careful readers may notice the following two problems with the present theory: (i) the placement of modifiers shows that the French infinitive verbs appear to raise only optionally, and their complement clauses still cannot be headed by the null C; (ii) as a result of the syntactic nominalization, modifiers that are adjoined to VP, if any, should follow the derived nominal; however, there is no such case in English. In this section, we solve these problems. The following two claims are made in the course of the discussion: (a) verb raising is always obligatory in French, (b) the manner adverb/adjective is not adjoined to VP but licensed in the checking domain of v/Nz (cf. Koizumi 1996). The first problem is illustrated by the following contrast, taken from Pollock (1989): (181) a. Jean (n')aime pas Marie. John Neg-like not Mary 'John does not like Mary.' b. *Jean ne pas aime Marie. (182) a. *Ne posseder pas de voiture en banlieue rend la vie difficile. Neg to own not a car in-the suburbs makes life difficult 'Not to own a car in the suburbs makes life difficult.' b. Ne pas posseder de voiture en banlieue rend la vie difficile. (183) a. Perdre completement la tete pour les belles etudiantes, c'est to lose completely one's head for pretty students, that's rare. dangerous 'To lose one's head completely for pretty students, that's dangerous.' b. Completement perdre la tete pour les belles etudiantes, c'est rare. On the basis of this asymmetry, Pollock argues that in French, while the finite verb always raises to T in (184), the infinitive verb cannot raise to T and can raise to AGR optionally:

In the structure we are adopting in this book, (184) is replaced by (185):


95

The claim that the finite verb in French overtly raises to T in (185) is presumably correct. However, we cannot admit his claim that in French, raising of the infinitive V to v is only optional (cf. also Iatridou 1990, who doubts the optional raising analysis on independent grounds). If Pollock were correct, we would predict that the C in the complement of an infinitive V can be null when the V does not raise, as in English. The fact that French does not allow the null C even in the complement of an nonfinite V suggests that, in French, the V in (185) is always moved to v. This, in turn, suggests that the manner adverb occupies different positions in (183a) and (183b). Suppose this is correct. Then, we have to determine where the manner adverb in each sentence is. Suppose, tentatively, that while it is adjoined to VP in (183a), it is adjoined to vP in (183b). Then, it follows the raised V in (183a) and precedes it in (183b). However, putting it to the VP-adjoined position is scmantically unreasonable.60 Given our split VP structure, taken from Chomsky (1995), it is reasonable to assume, following Hale and Keyser (1993), that v denotes an action or process and that V denotes a resulting state (cf. also Pustejovsky 1991 and Ogawa 1997:chapter 5). If this assumption is wellmotivated, the manner adverb must be in the domain of v, rather than V, since it modifies an action or process rather than a resulting state. To put the manner adverb in a VP-adjoined position is also empirically problematic. Recall my claim that in noun phrases like the doctor's examination of John, the V has been raised to Nz to form a complex word examination, as in (186): (186)

[DPthe doctor's, [D- D [NzP ti [Nz. V(examine)+Nz (-ion) [VP tv of John ]]]]]

Now, if a manner adverb could be adjoined to VP, we would have the ill-formed (187): (187)

*the doctor's examination completely of John

Example (187) might be ruled out on independent grounds, since an adverb appears in a noun phrase. However, even if we replace the adverb in (187) by the adjective complete, the expression is still ill-formed: *the doctor's examination complete of John. In a well-formed expression, the adjective must precede the derived nominal, as in (188): (188)

the doctor's complete examination of John

The data presented so far force us to make the following three claims: (a) in French, every V raises to v overtly and obligatorily; (b) the manner adverb/adjective is not adjoined to VP; and (c) there are at least two different positions for the manner adverb in the domain of v. The claim (a) is only theoryinternally motivated, and it is impossible to justify it independently. Hence, in what follows, we focus our attention on the claims (b) and (c). We then show that

96


the two claims, which are apparently unrelated, are unified under Koizumi's (1996) proposal. Koizumi (1996) proposes that the notion 'checking domain' is in fact not the domain for 'checking', and that modifiers are also 'licensed' in the checking domain of a particular head: (189)

A modifier must be in the checking domain of the modified head at LF.

The checking domain of a head includes its Specs and a position adjoined to it or its maximal projection (see chapter 1, (11)):

Suppose that the manner adverb completement must be licensed in the checking domain of v. Let us also suppose, following Travis (1988), that true adverbs are not maximal projections.61 Then, it can be adjoined to either v or vP. Given these assumptions, the structures for (183a-b) are schematized as in (191a-b), respectively, since the French V always raises to v:

The adverb follows V in (191a), whereas it precedes V in (191b). Hence, the infinitive verb raising appears to be optional in French, even if it is actually obligatory. Since the true adverb no longer needs to adjoin to VP, the problem noted earlier disappears. If the manner adverb cannot be adjoined to VP, (187) cannot be generated: (187)

*the doctor's examination completely of John

In contrast, (188) involves no problem, since the manner adjective here is adjoined either to Nz° or NzP; the two adjoined positions are both in the checking domain of Nz: (188)

the doctor's complete examination of John

If the modifier adjoined to Nz before the V raises to Nz, we would have *examinecomplete(t)ion. However, if an affix and its associate are discontinuous in this way, it will be ruled out as unintelligible at the output of Morphology. While derived nominals in English can never precede adjective modifiers or referential adjectives, those in French may (in most cases, 'must') precede them:


97

(193) a. La frequente invasion allemande de 1'Autriche b. *La frequente allemande invasion de 1'Autriche. This contrast between English and French might appear to require a parameter with respect to the positioning of certain adjectival modifiers. However, Valois (1991) proposes that the functional category Num exists between DP and NoP (my NzP), and that, while the derived nominal in (188) stays in the head of NoP, that in (193a) overtly raises to Num across the external non-NP argument allemande in Spec NoP, as shown in (194):

If his analysis is correct, the fact in the French (193) does not pose a problem for my claim that no adjective modifiers are adjoined to VP.62 2.9.2 No Null Cs in Factive Complements We have argued in section 2.2 that English allows the null C in the complement of a verb, since the null C can satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the verb. However, there is a class of verbs whose complement clauses cannot be headed by the null C even in English (perhaps, universally). They are "factive" verbs, as illustrated in (195):63,64,65 (195)

I accept/confirmed/asserted/conjectured/envisaged/intimated/judged/ proposed/speculated/stated [*(that) Bill is a spy]. (Hegarty 1992:46-49)

In this section, I account for the obligatoriness of that in (195) essentially by referring to the semantics of the factive complements and the already introduced prohibition against attracting traces (cf. note 4). Ormazabal (1995:chapter 4) proposes that, while pure propositional complements must occupy their base-generated position within VP at LF, factive complements must appear outside VP at LF because of its presuppositional nature. Putting aside technical details, he assumes that propositional and factive complements share the same internal structure and that they are distinguished only in terms of the positions they occupy at LF, which stem from the difference in their denotations. Specifically, he proposes that what the proposition denotes is that the event has occurred in a certain model, but the specific model changes depending on the controller of the external argument in [Spec, C]. What follows is a citation from his passage (ibid.:249-250): When the sentence stays within VP at LF, the truth or falsity of the proposition will be evaluated within the 'mental model' of the subject of the propositional predicate; [to the contrary,] if the sentential complement

98

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections moves out of this domain and the external argument of Comp is not controlled by any argument structurally present, the model where the proposition will be evaluated is the one through the context or, more precisely, the model that contains the speaker's and the other participants' common ground knowledge about the world, including all the common presuppositions previously introduced in the discourse.

Ormazabal motivates this proposed correspondence between syntax and semantics on empirical grounds as well. His argument comes from an interesting correlation between negative polarity licensing and tense agreement observed by Uribe-Etxebarria (1994). First, unlike the other nonfactive propositional predicates, say, even in the past tense, can take a complement clause with a future tense: (197) a. Mary didn't say [that Ann will read those books this fall]. b. *Mary believed/considered/thought [that Sue will defend her thesis tomorrow]. cf. Mary believed/considered/thought [that Sue would defend her thesis tomorrow]. (Ormazabal 1995:268-271) However, the tense agreement is forced when the complement clause involves a negative polarity item (NPI) that must be licensed by the matrix negative element: (198) a. Mary will not say [that Ann will read any books this fall]. (ibid.:270) b. *Mary didn't say [that Ann will read any books this fall]. (ibid.:271) Ormazabal argues that the ill-formedness of (198) follows from the assumption that a future tense cannot be licensed in the c-command domain of a past tense, and hence the clause that involves a future tense must be moved out of VP and the scope of the matrix tense. In contrast to this requirement on future tense, every NPI must be c-commanded by its licenser, in this case, not in the matrix clause, at LF. Hence, the two requirements cannot both be met at the same time, and the sentence is ruled out. On the basis of this argument, consider the following contrast, which shows that while a future tense may not appear in the complement of a nonfactive propositional predicate in the present tense ((197b)), it may occur in the complement of a factive predicate even if the latter is in the past tense (= (199)): (197) b. *Mary believed/considered/thought [that Sue will defend her thesis tomorrow]. (199) Mary pointed out/forgot/remembered [that Sue will defend her thesis tomorrow]. Ormazabal argues that this contrast straightforwardly follows from his proposal that the factive complements move out of VP at LF because of its presupposi-


99

tional nature. As expected, with an ambiguous predicate in the past tense like reported, the choice of would (under tense agreement) cancels the presupposition of the complement, though the choice of will forces the presuppositional reading (ibid.:268): (200) a. They reported [that Sue will defend her thesis], (presuppositional) b. They reported [that Sue would defend her thesis], (nonpresuppositional) Ormazabal further extends his proposal to account for the generalization that factive complements cannot license the null C:66 (201)

*Mary pointed out

c

Sue wasn't there.

In his system (as well as ours), the null C in the complement of a factive verb, because of its morphological properties, must move and adjoin to the selecting verb in overt syntax. After that, the entire complement clause moves out of the VP, resulting in the following configuration at LF: (202)

*[ XP [ CP ? c ...][ x .X...[ vp ) c+vtcp ]]]

Ormazabal attributes the ill-formedness of this configuration to the Proper Binding Condition (PBC), which states that traces must be bound. In (202), since the trace of the incorporated C is not bound by its antecedent, the PBC is violated. (202) is arguably identical to the configuration we would obtain if we topicalized a that-less finite CP, differing only in the level at which the illicit configuration is produced: (203)

*[He has done it], I can't believe.

Ormazabal's proposal is attractive in that it provides a unified solution to the impossibility of the null C in (201) and (203). In fact, I believe that his insight is correct in that the factive complement does not permit the null C because it undergoes movement (out of VP at LF).67 We deny his PBC-based account of (202), however, simply because the PBC has been eliminated on both conceptual and empirical grounds in the minimalist program (Kitahara 1994; Takano 1994; Koizumi 1995; Muller 1996).68 Instead, we propose a constraint to the effect that a category whose head is moved out of its maximal projection cannot be attracted any more: (204)

Do not attract a category headed by a trace.

Although (204) derives the same effects as the PBC in relevant respects, it differs from the PBC in that it is a derivational constraint. Let us illustrate how (204)

100


rules out (201) and (203). The derivation of (203), for instance, proceeds as follows:

In (205a), the null C adjoins to the selecting V. After several applications of Merge and the subject raising to [Spec, I], (205a) is mapped into (205b). Suppose that at this point, Pol has some strong feature that can be checked against the CP at the complement of V. However, Pol cannot attract the CP itself, since its head C is extracted out of the CP and is adjoined to the matrix V. Nor can it attract the C that is adjoined to V since the X°-adjoined position is in the domain of morphology rather than syntax and Move cannot apply to part of a word.69 Hence, the derivation in (203) crashes because of the unchecked feature of Pol. The same argument also applies to (201) as well, if Pol is replaced by some functional head that attracts presuppositional phrases to its checking domain. (204) may be subsumed under the definition of Attract-F if we assume that traces created by head-movements do not have any one of the features their antecedents (i.e., the moved heads) have. In fact, Chomsky (1995:chapter 4) suggests several variants of this idea, as stated here: (206) a. The intermediate trace t of an argument cannot be attracted; hence, does not prevent attraction of an element that it c-commands, (p. 303) b. Trace is immobile, (p. 304) c. Only the head of a chain CH enters into the operation Attract/Move. d. can be attracted by K only if it contains no trace, (p. 365) While (206a-c) essentially make the same claim, (206d) is a stronger condition in that it radically narrows the range of possible attractees to those which involve only 'complete chains'. Chomsky suggests that, while one of the immediate consequences of (206d) is that overt countercyclic operations of the kind that motivated the extension condition are ruled out, (206d) may be too strong even within the core computational system (ibid.:365). The same comment does not apply to (204), however, since (204) is clearly weaker than (206d) in that, in parallel to (206d), (204) can be restated as in (208): (208)

a can be attracted by K only if it is not headed by a trace.

We are not concerned with whether or not (208) can be derived from a more general principle, since (204) or (208), in conjunction with Ormazabal's proposal that factive complements undergo LF movement out of VP, enables us to provide an alternative account (that does not depend on the PBC) for the fact that they cannot be headed by the null C.


101

2.9.3 Null Cs in Subjunctive Complements When we discuss the (im)possibility of the null C in a nonfactive finite complement clause, we have not particularly distinguished indicative from subjunctive moods. As long as we are discussing languages like English, which has almost lost the subjunctive mood, the distinction may not be necessary. In many languages, however, the distinction remains, and the possibility of the null C differs depending on whether it is in an indicative or subjunctive complement. Consider, for instance, the following contrast in Romanian: (209) a. Maria nu crede *(ca) toti baietii sunt a colo. Maria not think that all boys-theare there (Grosu and Horvath 1984) 'Maria does not think that all the boys are there.' b. Vreau (ca) sa vina Ion mline. I-want that Sbj-Prt comes John tomorrow 'I want for John to come tomorrow.' (Boskovic 1995:56) As is clear from (209a), Romanian is a language that does not permit the null C in a finite indicative complement clause. However, the null C is basically permitted in a subjunctive complement clause, as shown in (209b). We have attributed the obligatoriness of the overt C in (209a) to condition (5) by showing that Romanian is an obligatory overt verb raising language, and it is almost impossible that the matrix verb in (209a) obligatorily raises overtly, whereas the one in (209b) does not. Therefore, the optionality of the overt C in (209b) must be ascribed to the possibility of the overt raising of the subjunctive marker sa to the embedded (null) C. This proposal is supported by the fact that the null C becomes impossible when the subject NP is fronted to the immediate left of the subjunctive particle

sa:

(210)

Maria nu crede *(ca) toti baietii sa fie a colo. Maria not think that all boys-the Sbj-Prt be-3 there 'Maria does not think that all the boys are there.'(Grosu and Horvath 1984)

In (210), the subjunctive marker clearly has not been raised to C. Hence, the null C lacks its overt host, and the derivation crashes at PF/Morphology. In contrast to (210), when the element that immediately precedes the subjunctive marker is not the (unstressed) subject NP but a focused element, as in (211), then the sentence becomes acceptable (Watanabe 1996:44; cf. Terzi 1992): (211)

Vreau MIINE sa mearga(si nu poimline). want-1 sg TOMORROW Sbj-Prt go-3 and not the day after 'I want him/her to go TOMORROW (and not the day after).'

This fact may be interpreted in our system as showing that the focused element is

102


moved to [Spec, C]. This is not an unreasonable assumption, since the [Spec, C] is a typical operator position. Returning to (209a), the obligatoriness of the overt C here shows that neither the finite verb nor a focused phrase is raised to the checking domain of C here. This is equally plausible since the unstressed subject NP cannot be an operator. In short, the contrast in Romanian with respect to the possibility of the null C between indicative and subjunctive complement clauses can be attributed to the possibility of the movement of the subjunctive particle to C (or the filling of [Spec, C] by an operator) only in subjunctive complement clauses. The same conclusion reached in Romanian is also attained in German, in which the overt V-to-C (plus filling of [Spec, C] by a topic phrase) typically takes place in subjunctive clauses. The following examples are taken from van Kemenade (1987:47): (212) a. Er sagte, *(da ) er ihn gesehen hat. he said that he him seen had-IND 'He said that he had seen him.' b. Er sagte, er habe ihn gesehen. he said he had-SUBJ him seen 'He said he had seen him.' Given the correlation between overt V-to-C and the subjunctive aspect, we would like to uncover the origin of this correlation. In this expedition, it is necessary to know the syntactic and semantic properties of subjunctive clauses in a language that has them. As defined in Traugott (1972:98), "'subjunctive' is a verbal inflection associated with such properties as potentiality, contingency, hypothesis, conjecture, unreality, exhortation, prohibition, wishing, desiring; [s]trictly speaking, it signals the attitude of the speaker, but in languages like OE its use is generalized to other contexts as well by convention." Subjunctive clauses are essentially finite clauses. In some languages, however, they share some syntactic properties with infinitive clauses. In fact, in Balkan languages, there is no controlled infinitive clause, and the subjunctive clauses must occur in the very syntactic positions where infinitive clauses with a PRO subject would occur in English: (213) a. I Maria prospathi [PRO na elegksi tin oreksi tis]. Mary-Nom try-3sg Prt control-3sg the appetite her 'Mary tries to control her appetite.' b. *I Maria prospathi [o Yiorgos na divasi]. Mary-Nom tries-3sg George-Nom Prt read-3sg 'Mary tried for George to read.' (Terzi 1997:336, 338) Na in (213a-b) is a subjunctive particle, and the clause following it is a finite clause in that it has a nonpast (defective) tense and pronominal agreement on its verb stem, as in (214):

Verb Raising and Null Complementizers (214)

103

O Yiannis kseri na kolimbai/*kolimbouse. John know-3sg-PRES Prt swim-3sg-PRES/*PAST 'John knows how to swim/*have swum.' (ibid.:347)

Readers are referred to Terzi's (1997) argument for the existence of the PRO subject in the subjunctive clauses.™ It is easy to find that the subjunctive clause in Modern Greek is a close finite counterpart of the controlled infinitives in English. It is true that languages that have a way to express obligatory control in an infinitive form, like English, seem to have a narrower usage of subjunctive clauses. In view of the defectiveness of tense and the possibility of a PRO subject, however, the finite subjunctives in Balkan languages and controlled infinitives in Romance languages seem to have some common ground. For this very reason, Watanabe (1993) has claimed, in the spirit of Chomsky and Lasnik's (1991) Null Case Theory, that PRO has its Null Case licensed in the Spec of a defective tense, which subsumes both subjunctive and infinitive tenses that project up to CP. As argued by Terzi (1997), however, this view has a number of empirical and conceptual problems, two of which are reproduced here. First, in Spanish, while the tense of a subjunctive clause is as defective as that in Modern Greek, the unrealized subject of the clause cannot be PRO, since it cannot be controlled by the matrix subject. (214a-b) are taken from Terzi (1997:349): (216) a. Juan trata de que coma/*comiera. John try-3sg de that eat-3sg-SUB-PRES/*PAST 'John tries for him to eat.' b. Juan, trata de que ECj/*i, coma. Second, the subjunctive clauses of some verbs in Modern Greek permit the (nondefective) past tense in some limited environments: (217) a. O Yiannis elpizi na erthi/irthe. John-Norn hope-3sg Prt come-3sg/came-3sg b. O Yiannis elpizi na ertho/*irtha. John-Norn hope-3sg Prt come-lsg/*came-lsg In the face of these facts, Terzi (1997) proposes that the formal licenser of the Null Case in Modern Greek is not a defective tense but the overt subjunctive particle na, which heads its own projection between CP and IP, called Mood Phrase (MP).71 On this proposal, the impossibility of PRO in (216) is straightforwardly attributable to the absence of a subjunctive particle in Spanish. He also notes that the presence of an overt subjunctive particle in M is not a sufficient condition for the licensing of Null Case, since, even in Modern Greek, there are cases in which control is not obligatory in the presence of the particle. These verbs, as exemplified by theli 'want' and elpizi 'hope', take a complement clause whose subject may be disjoint from the matrix subject (see also (217)):

104 (218)

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections I Mariaj theli ECi/j na diavasi. Mary-Nom want-3sg Prt read-3sg 'Mary wants (for him/her) to read.'

To accommodate this fact, Terzi suggests that, when the EC in (218) is not controlled by the matrix subject, it is pro rather than PRO and that in this case the amalgamate of M and V is overtly moved to C, from where a postverbal subject is licensed in a manner comparable to Rizzi's (1982) Aux-to-Comp mechanism, as in (219): (219)

Vwant [CP M+V+C [MPpro [ M .f M+v [IP„ tv ... ]]]]]

As evidence for the presence of V-to-M movement, he points out the following contrast: (220) a. I Maria theli na agorasi o Yiannis tin efimerida. Mary-Nom want-3sg Prt buy-3sg John-Nom the newspaper 'Mary wants John to buy the newspaper.' (ibid.:355) b. *O Yiannis theli na i Maria diavasi. John-Nom want-3sg Prt Mary-Nom read-3sg 'John wants Mary to read.' (ibid.:356) In (220b), the subjunctive particle and the verb are set apart by the subject and the sentence is ruled out. The well-formedness of (220a), as opposed to the illformedness of (220b), suggests that V must move to M overtly. Moreover, the incompatibility between the subjunctive particle and an overt complementizer in this language may be regarded as evidence for the presence of the overt movement of the V+M complex to C (see note 71). We have seen Terzi's proposals about subjunctives, which are summarized in the following four statements: (i) subjunctive clauses must involve MP between CP and IP, (ii) [Spec, M] can be filled by either PRO, pro or an overt NP, (iii) M can license PRO only if it is headed by an overt subjunctive particle, and (iv) the V+M complex moves to C overtly at least when [Spec, M] is filled by pro or an overt NP. Among these proposals, what particularly concerns us here is the last one, the overt V-to-C movement, and its motivation. Terzi attributes this movement to a similar reason to the Aux-to-Comp movement in Romance languages. Now, recall that we have assumed in section 5 that the Aux-to-Comp movement in Romance languages is attributable to the presence of a tense feature in the Comp position, which is selected by the matrix verb. In view of Terzi's examples, this assumption may have to be modified so that the relevant Comp has a modality feature rather than a tense feature. Note that this modification is compatible with our own data in Japanese, presented in section 5, since the nouns kanousei 'possibility' and keiken 'experience' directly correspond to the epistemic modal can and the auxiliary of perfective aspect have, respectively. The fact that the former noun selects a nonpast tense in its complement, whereas the


105

latter selects a past tense in it, can now be considered an epiphenomenon that results from some close connection between modality and tense, and it does not necessarily show that the nouns themselves select a particular tense in the syntax. In light of this modification, the fact that a nondefective past tense is possible in the subjunctive complement of some verbs is no longer surprising, since the tense in an embedded clause is not directly selected by the matrix verb, and some variations may occur with respect to whether a certain tense feature of T percolates up to C or not. To sum up the discussion so far, subjunctive clauses involve M(ood)P between CP and IP, and the V-to-M movement in it is triggered by the existence of a certain modality feature in the M head, which has to be checked against C.72It is important to note here that the movement of the V+M complex in overt syntax may occur for a different reason: for the satisfaction of the affixal property of the null C. For the question of why the complementizer of a subjunctive clause tends to be empty even in languages in which the complementizer of an indicative clause must be overt, the defectiveness of the tense may be partially relevant. The fact that the tense of a subjunctive clause tends to be defective may also be considered a result of some close association between modality and tense (note that some modal auxiliaries do not have a past tense counterpart). Before closing this section, it is necessary to consider why UG permits two ways to express obligatory control in natural language: subjunctive and infinitive clauses. Given Terzi's elaborated clausal structure, we may be able to attribute this ambiguity to the feature-checking theory in the minimalist program. The idea is that the M head has some uninterpretable feature that has to be checked against C universally. Then, if M selects T, it must be selected by C. Thus, if C is absent, M cannot exist, either." Under this idea, we expect two types of language that are scmantically equivalent in the final LF representation, though derivationally distinct. In the Greek-type languages, both C and M have some uninterpretable features that are checked off by LF. Suppose, also, that all the scmantically interpretable features including tense, modality and aspect reside in the functional head T and that the subcategorization of the matrix verb is satisfied only after all the uninterpretable formal features between the matrix verb and the embedded T have been eliminated. Then, the V+T+M complex must be raised to C sooner or later. On the other hand, in the English-type languages, the obligatory control is expressed by infinitive clauses, which involves neither CP nor MP, and hence they are IPs/TPs. In this structure, the movement of the embedded T should be unnecessary throughout derivation, since the subcategorization of the matrix verb is already satisfied at the point of the merger. It is important to note here that the two types of obligatory control structure are equally permitted even if UG is constrained by principles of economy, since they have different numerations. Two or more derivations can be compared with each other on economy theoretic grounds only if they share the same numeration (Chomsky 1995). This assumption is independently necessary in order to avoid the "exponential blowup" of potential derivations and reduce the complexity of linguistic computations to the minimum.

106


Some nontrivial issues concerning subjunctives still remain to be explained. Above all, why is it that a subjunctive clause in some language has to project up to CP if T has all the relevant semantic features concerning tense, modality and aspect? We leave the issue for future research since the discussion of it is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, the discussion in the next section may have some relevance to this issue. 2.9.4 Some Comments on the "IP Hypothesis" of That-less Clauses We have assumed throughout this chapter that every finite clause is CP, whether the complementizer is overt or null, and discussed the (im)possibility of the null C in the indicative nonfactive complements of some languages and in the factive complements of any language on the basis of the assumption. However, finite subordinate clauses that lack an overt complementizer invite one obvious alternative analysis: it is simply a bare IP, and no CP-level is projected. The two analyzes are structured as in (221a-b), respectively: (221) a. John says [cp c [1P the flavor helps us calm down our mind]], b. John says [IP the flavor helps us calm down our mind]. For ease of exposition, let us call (221a) the "CP-hypothesis" and (221b) the 'IPhypothesis'. The proponents of the CP-hypothesis are Stowell (1981), Kayne (1981), Pesetsky (1995), and myself, whereas those of the IP-hypothesis are Webelhuth (1989, 1992), Law (1991), Boskovic (1993), Deprez (1993), Nakajima (1996), and Doherty (1997), among others. The most familiar ground for the IPhypothesis is that, given the two analyzes of a single terminal string in (221), (221b) is simpler than (22la) and hence should be chosen as a more economical representation. A hidden assumption behind this argument, which itself sounds plausible, is that the overt complementizer adds no semantic import to the finite clausal IP. However, I do not think that the economy theoretic consideration is on the right track, since derivations that start from different numerations (that is, one that involves C and the other that does not) should not be compared with each other in the first place, for reasons noted at the end of the preceding section. Hence, if this were the only basis for the IP-hypothesis, it should be rejected for the following two reasons: first, it resists an otherwise possible simplification of the subcategorization frame of many verbs in English because it should permit them to subcategorize for both IP and CP; and, second, if we admit the enriched subcategorization frame, we cannot provide an account for the fact that their counterparts in many other languages do not tolerate the same ambiguity, as we have amply illustrated (it is not on the right track to reduce the fact to l(exicial)selection, as Boskovic does, since it does not explain the generalization (73)). These two points may suffice to reject the IP-hypothesis. Recently, however, Doherty (1997) has presented additional conceptual and empirical arguments for the IP-hypothesis, some of which are convincing and worth considering carefully


107

even if they should be rejected ultimately. Hence, in what follows, we reexamine his arguments one by one. 2.9.4.1. The Uniqueness of Free Alternation Doherty (1997) argues that whether the null C occurs in the terminal string as a result of deletion in the PF component or is introduced in the syntax by lexical insertion, the free alternation between the null and overt C is typologically strange and even surprising, since other (functional) heads such as determiners fail to display similar alternation, and they are either obligatorily null or obligatorily overt: (222) a. V[ CP that [,„...]] b- V[ C P <M I P ...]] On the other hand, this problem does not arise in the IP-hypothesis since it does not postulate the existence of the null C in the grammar of English. Furthermore, the IP-complementation is already independently assumed to be present in the grammar of English (thus, the ECM complements in Chomsky's 1981 system). This argument against the CP-hypothesis must be evaluated in two steps. First, we may ask if the uniqueness of the free alternation between null and overt heads is really conceptually problematic. Second, if it is indeed the case, it must be examined whether the alternation in question is actually unique to the complementizer, as Doherty argues. The first question is related to the question of whether it is methodologically valid to state that only the category C permits free alternation between null and overt counterparts. It is generally believed that category-specific statements, conditions, or filters are better eliminated from grammar or replaced by more abstract principles that do not refer to particular categories. In the current situation, however, there remain a few operations, constraints, or filters whose application is limited to a single category. The most familiar of them is the traditional Case Filter, which roughly states that every overt NP must have Case. Although the theoretical refinement of the Case Theory has been in progress since its emergence late in the 1970s, the essential assumption that Case assignment/checking exclusively involves a nominal category in an argument position remains intact. And Case Theory cannot be rejected for this reason. This state of affairs means that if a category-specific statement has good empirical motivation, we cannot reject it just because it is category-specific. We can only say that, other thing being equal, the analysis with a category-neutral statement is more desirable than the one with a category-specific one; when the one with a category-specific statement has much wider empirical coverage than the one that has discarded it in pursuit of conceptual naturalness, which analysis to choose can be decided only on the basis of the careful examination of whether or not the wide range of relevant data is what the relevant theory of language should deal

108


with. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should not a priori reject the possibility of postulating both the null and overt Cs in UG. Doherty's argument against the postulation of the null C seems unfair in that these considerations are missing. The second question, whether the alternation in question is really unique to the C, is a purely empirical question. If the free alternation between null and overt heads is not unique to the C, we feel free to pursue the CP-hypothesis for the reasons just noted. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to find examples of a really 'free' alternation between null and overt heads in English for the following reasons: even if there is a null head that has the same semantics as its overt counterpart, the very fact that the null head is not scmantically vacuous constitutes a reason for the existence of the null heads. Thus, even if we find the free alternations such as (223) or (224), one might argue that these examples are irrelevant because the Pred head (Bowers 1993) and the Mood head (Pollock 1997), which are supposed to exist even in (223b) and (224b), respectively, are scmantically contentful and, hence, the matter of their existence is essentially different from the matter of the existence of the null C, which seems to be scmantically vacuous: (223) a. He thinks himself to be a great poet, b. He thinks himself a great poet. (224) a. The doctor recommended/ advised/ suggested that she should take a vacation, b. The doctor recommended/ advised/ suggested that she take a vacation. However, this line of counterargument is inapplicable to some cases in languages other than English, in which the free alternation between overt and null heads is more pervasive. Above all, the definite determiner that modifies certain Ns can be freely dropped. Consider (226a-b): (225) a. (II) Gianni mi ha telefonato. the Gianni me has called-up (Italian) 'Gianni has called me up.' (Longobardi 1994:651) b. to kalo (to) vivlio the good the book (Modern Greek) 'the good book' (Androutsopoulou 1994:17) Here, the overt counterparts of the determiners are no more scmantically contentful than the overt C in English, since the definiteness of the entire noun phrases in (225a-b) is independently expressed by the proper name (in (225a)) or by another definite article (in (225b)). In other words, these superfluous determiners are 'expletive determiners', in Gueron's (1985) sense, which are scmantically vacuous. Then, (225a-b) instantiate the very free alternation between null and overt heads which we are seeking. The Accusative Case-marker drop phenomenon in Japanese, as discussed by Saito (1982), among many others,


109

could also be subsumed under the free alternation phenomena. In fact, given the fact that complementizers, expletive determiners in Romance languages (see Gueron 1985), and Case particles (Bittner and Hale 1996a,b) are all the outermost functional heads in noun phrases or clauses, the free alternations that occur in these environments may be different realizations of a single phenomenon. Arguments along these lines are proposed in Lamontagne and Travis (1987), Bittner and Hale (1996a), and Ogawa (1997). See the fourth chapter of this book, which is a revision of Ogawa (1997:chapter 4).74 In short, the free alternation between overt and null heads is not unique to complementizer, which suggests that it is reasonable to analyze the optional drop of complementizer in English as one instance of free alternations between overt and null heads, at least as plausibly as the dual categorial selection by the matrix verb, as Doherty (1997) argues for. Therefore, I conclude that his first argument against the CP-hypothesis is not so strong as Doherty expects. 2.9.4.2

Coordinate Structure Constraints

Doherty (1997) argues that, despite the fact that both XP-movement and X°movement obey the coordinate structure constraint (CSC), the alleged incorporation of the null C to the selecting verb does not obey the CSC, which is problematic to the particular version of the CP-hypothesis that assumes the C-toV incorporation. To illustrate his point, consider first (227): (227) a. *The shirts which I [went to the movies] and [didn't pick up ] will cost us a lot of money. (Ross 1986:104) b. * What can [John eat] and [Mary should not eat]? (Doherty 1997:208) In (227a) a wh-phrase is extracted only from the last conjunct of the conjoined VPs and the sentence is ruled out. In (227b) a modal head is extracted only from the first conjunct of the conjoined IPs, and the sentence is ruled out. These cases are normally analyzed as instances of CSC violations. Consider next (228):75 (228) a. I believe [he's light] and [that you're wrong]. b. I hope [you can come] and [that Harry can too].

(ibid.:208-209)

Under the CP-hypothesis of that-less finite clauses, the first conjuncts in (228a-b) must involve the null C. Then, if we follow Pesetsky (1995) in assuming the overt incorporation of the null C to the selecting verb, the incorporation must take place from just one conjunct of the conjoined CPs, which would lead to a violation of the CSC, contrary to fact. On the other hand, given the IP-hypothesis of that-less finite clauses, (228a-b) can be analyzed as coordination of IP and CP. Noting that mismatch in categorial features is occasionally permitted in cases when both conjuncts are of similar semantic types, he argues that the coordinations in (228) are permitted since IP and CP denote the same semantic entity, 'proposition':


110

(229) a. She does not know [the answer] or [how to find out anything]. b. His father was [well known to the police] and [a devout Catholic]. c. She walked [slowly] and [with great care]. (ibid.:215) This argument against the CP-hypothesis appears to sound convincing. However, it falsifies the CP-hypothesis only if the CSC applies unexceptionally. Consider the following paradigm: (230) a. There are/*is four men and a woman in the house, b. There is/*are a man and five women in the house. As noted in Boskovic (1996:87) and references therein, the copula in the locative existential sentences always agrees in number not with the conjoined NPs, which are scmantically plural in both (230a-b), but with the first conjunct in the conjoined NPs, which is semantically plural in (230a) but singular in (230b). This paradigm can be expected if we adopt the Move-F theory and assume that LFmovement for the checking of the phi-feature of the copula is the movement of only phi-features out of the first conjunct NP. Given this, we give the following LF configurations to (230a-b), respectively: (231) a. There FF(D)+are [[DP tpm four men] and [ DP a woman]] in the house, b. There FF(D)+is [[D1, tff(D) a man] and [ DP four women]] in the house. On whatever definition of the CSC, extraction of the FF(D) in (231a-b) should violate it, though it is well-formed. This forces us to assume that extraction of the left edge out of the leftmost conjunct in a coordinate structure does not violate the CSC. Suppose this is correct. Given this assumption, we can rule in the extraction of c out of the leftmost conjunct, as in (232), for the same reasons as in (23 lab). Thus, the well-formedness of (228) does not undermine our theory:76 (232)

c+believe

[[tc he is right] and [that you're wrong]]

2.9.4.3 The Embedded Topicalization As pointed out in note 64, topicalization in embedded clauses in English is acceptable only when the topic phrase appears to the right of an overt complementizer: (233) a. I hope *(that) this book you will read. b. She claims *(that) Guinness he likes but *(that) whiskey he hates. Since the overt C is omissible in the absence of topic phrases, it is surprising to find out the obligatoriness of the overt C in this environment. This is particularly so since the same restriction also holds in other languages such as Danish,


111

Swedish, and Norwegian, in which the null C is otherwise possible (see the contrast between (49) and (51)). Doherty (1997) claims that, given the IP-hypothesis of that-less finite clauses and the IP-adjunction analysis of topicalization, the ill-formedness of (233) in the absence of that can be due to a general condition on adjunction, which states that adjunction to a phrase that is scmantically selected by a lexical head is prohibited (cf. Chomsky 1986b). In contrast, given the CP-hypothesis, the adjunction of a topic phrase to IP does not lead to the same problem since IP is not an argument under the hypothesis. Therefore, Doherty concludes that the IPhypothesis is on the right track. There is a serious problem with this line of argument. If he is correct in claiming that finite clauses without overt complementizers or overt specifiers are IP, the bracketed relative clause in the following sentence should be IP, rather than CP: (234)

Barriers is one book [I would never give to Sue].

He also assumes in his paper, on independent grounds, that relative clauses are adjuncts to NP, rather than complements of a category. Then, we expect that topicalization can target the left-boundary of the headless relative clause, since it is not s-selected by any category, and, hence, adjunction to it does not violate the general condition on adjunction. However, the fact is that topicalization in a relative clause is impossible without an overt complementizer in C° or an overt wh-operator in its Spec. The following pair of examples is taken from Pesetsky (1998:358): (235) a. Barriers is one book [which to Sue I would never give]. b. Barriers is one book [that to Sue I would never give]. c. * Barriers is one book [to Sue I would never give]. In Doherty's theory, it is impossible to rule out (235c) in violation of the prohibition against adjunction to an s-selected phrase. On the other hand, it seems quite reasonable to assume that the obligatoriness of that in (233) and the necessity of either a wh-operator or that in (235) stem from the same reasons. Then, something is wrong with his explanation of (233). The problem raised by (235c) may be skirted if one assumes that adjunction to the maximal projection of a relative clause is blocked on independent grounds, whatever it is. Note that the following example is similarly ruled out: (236) a. *Barriers is one book [to Sue which I would never give], b. * Barriers is one book [to Sue that I would never give]. In (236a-b), the topicalization clearly targets the CP headed by either an overt or covert complementizer, and nevertheless the sentences are ill-formed. Whether or

112


not we assume that relative clauses are selected complements, these sentences show that topicalization to the left boundary of a relative clause is prohibited. Then, under the IP hypothesis, (235c) might be ruled out for the same reasons as (236a-b). However, this line of argument may potentially render the prohibition against adjunction to s-selected complements to a vacuous statement, since one may well argue, as we do later, that the same reason that blocks topicalization in (236) also blocks topicalization in that-less complements as in (233), without recourse to the argument/adjunct distinction or the assumption that topicalization involves adjunction to IP. If this alternative solution is feasible, the (im)possibility of embedded topicalization in certain contexts is irrelevant to the evaluation of the IP hypothesis of that-less finite clauses which Doherty wants to defend. That this alternative view is more plausible is independently shown by the fact that embedded topicalization is impossible in the complement of factive verbs (e.g., regret, accept, confirm), semifactive verbs (e.g., know, learn, realize), certain adjectives including likely and possible, and nouns like fact (Hooper and Thompson 1973; (237a) is taken from Watanabe 1993:126): (237) a. *John regretted that Gone with the Wind, we went to see. b. *It is likely that Sue, Mary likes. c. *The fact that Bill, Mary likes makes John very jealous. Even if topicalization were an IP-adjunction, the IP to which a topic has been adjoined in (237) is clearly not an s-selected complement, since it is embedded in the s-selected CP headed by an overt complementizer. Then, the ill-formedness of (237a-c) falls out of the prohibition against adjunction to s-selected complements. There have been proposed two alternative analyses to the topicalization in English and other languages. One is what we may call 'the PolP hypothesis' (Culicover 1991, Koizumi 1995), and the other is 'the CP-recursion hypothesis' (Authier 1992, Watanabe 1993). The PolP hypothesis states that there is an independent functional projection called PolP between IP and CP, and its Spec is the landing site of topicalization. The CP-recursion hypothesis states that when topicalization has taken place, two projections of CP recur above IP, and the Spec of the lower C is the landing site of topicalization universally. These analyses differ from the IP-adjunction hypothesis in assuming that topicalization is a substitution operation to the Spec of a functional category. These analyses have one notable advantage: they are compatible with the current minimalist assumption that every movement is driven by the necessity to check a formal feature. Furthermore, they have a way to account for the ill-formedness of (237ac). Consider (238a-c) ((238a) is taken from Watanabe 1993:126): (238) a. *John regretted that never had he seen Gone with the Wind. b. *It is likely that seldom did he drive that car. c. *The fact that never has he had to borrow money makes him very proud.


113

In a sentence involving negative preposing, subject-auxiliary inversion is forced. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed negative phrases fill the Spec of a functional category. Suppose that the functional category is Pol. Then, the illformedness of the sentences in (238) shows that PolP is not licensed in the complement of these lexical categories. Now, if we assume that topicalization is also a movement to the Spec of PolP, (237a-c) will be ruled out in the same way as (238a-c), respectively. One may well argue that, if topicalization in English targets the same Spec position as negative preposing, it is unclear why the latter but not the former triggers subject-auxiliary inversion. We have no immediate answer to this question. However, we may point out that the topicalization in Icelandic, Yiddish, and mainland Scandinavian languages triggers subject-auxiliary inversion in an embedded clause: (239) a. Danish (Reinholtz 1994:407): Peter tror at den film har Maria aldrig set. Peter thinks that that film has Maria never seen 'Peter thinks that that film, Maria has never seen.' b. Icelandic (Vikner 1995:91): Hann veil ad kannski las Jon aldrei bokina. he knows that maybe read John never book-the 'He knows that maybe John never reads the book.' The languages that permit embedded topicalization with subject-auxiliary inversion are not a monolith but are divided into two subclasses: those which require the inversion (Icelandic, Yiddish) and those in which the inversion is only optional (Danish, Swedish). Given this, it is not unreasonable that there exists a third type of language which does not permit the inversion in the case of topicalization. English may be one such language. It does not matter, either, whether we choose the PolP hypothesis or the CP-recursion hypothesis. What I'd like to do here is to propose that the highest C that selects PolP or the lower CP as its complement is different from the one that selects TP as its complement and to attribute the ill-formedness of (237) and (238) to the subcategorization frames of the matrix verbs. The two different types of Cs should differ in terms of selectional properties: one that selects TP (call it Type A) can be subcategorized for by any verb that can s-select a proposition, whereas the other which selects PolP/CP (call it Type B) can be selected only by nonfactive assertive verbs. One independent piece of evidence for this proposal comes from the fact, pointed out by Borsley and Rivero (1994:409), that in Danish, which generally permits an indicative CP in the complement of a preposition, it is disallowed when embedded topicalization has taken place in the clause with an overt C:

114


(240) a. Maria var ikke sikker pa [at Peter nogensimde havde set filmen], Maria was not sure on that Peter ever had seen film-DEF b. *Maria var ikke sikker pa [at det ville Marta g < > re hver dag]. Maria was not sure on that that would Maria do every day This contrast can now be interpreted as indicating that the preposition pa in Danish can select only the C of Type A. Similarly, the English complementizer that introduces an infinitive clause, for, must be of Type A, since topicalization is impossible in its complement: (241) a. *It is impossible for this idea John to hit in his mind. b. *I would wait for under normal circumstances Harry to arrive for several hours. (Browning 1996:238) If topicalization were IP-adjunction, these sentences should be ruled in, since the IP in a for-infinitive is not s-selected by a lexical category ."However, given a substitution analysis of topicalization, we can assume that for is the C of Type A, which selects TP as its complement. Arguments along these lines lead us to suppose that for certain verbs, both types of Cs (call them CA and CB for ease of exposition) are permissible as the heads of their complements. The dual selectional possibility itself does not pose a problem, since there are other such instances in Spanish. Rivero (1978, 1980) and Plann (1982:302) point out that in Spanish, interrogative complements of certain verbs can optionally be introduced by the same complementizer that is used to introduce an indicative clause: (242) a. Maria se preguntaba (que) por que tenia hacer la cena. 'Maria was wondering why she had to make the dinner.' b. Rogelio nos pregunto (que) cuando podriamos entregar la tarea. 'Roger asked us when we would be able to hand in the assignment.' This complementizer is not always possible, however. In fact, the interrogative complements of many other verbs cannot be introduced by it (ibid.:303): (243) a. Juan nos {contro/relato/refirio} (*que) por que habia fracasado. 'Juan {told/related/told} to us why he had failed.' b. Luisa {explico/revero/confeso} (*que) como la habian hechizado. 'Louise {explained/revealed/confessed} how they had bewitched her.' Given the fact that Spanish does not permit the null C in an indicative complement and that it is an obligatory verb raising language, the optionality of the overt C in (242) cannot be analyzed as free alternation between the null and overt Cs. Then, it seems that the contrast between (242) and (243) has to be analyzed in terms of the CP-recursion hypothesis and the dual selectional


115

property for certain verbs. Specifically, the Spanish counterparts of verbs like wonder and ask can select both CA and CB, whereas those of verbs like tell, relate, explain, reveal, and confess can select only CA. We have argued so far that topicalization is a substitution operation to either [Spec, Pol] (under the PolP hypothesis) or the lower [Spec, C] (under the CP-recursion hypothesis) rather than adjunction to IP, and that if we postulate two types of Cs which differ from each other in their selectional properties, the failure of topicalization in certain embedded contexts can be attributed to the selectional properties of the lexical categories that can take a CP as its complement, that is, whether they can select both CA and CB or only C A . 78 Furthermore, CB, as one of its lexical properties, must take Pol (under the PolP hypothesis) or CA (under the CP-recursion hypothesis) as its complement. We have not chosen between the two hypotheses about topicalization. However, let us point out here that conjunction of the CP-recursion hypothesis and the two-way distinction of Cs poses one empirical problem. Note that under the hypothesis, embedded topicalization is assumed to occur in a structure in which the matrix verb selects CD, CB selects CA( and CA selects TP and that CA, if selected by CB, must have a topic in its Spec. By definition, however, CAP can also occur at the complement of the matrix verb. Then, there is no way to exclude the possibility that CAP whose Spec is filled by a topic phrase occurs at the complement of the matrix verb.79 This problem does not arise under the PolP hypothesis, since in this hypothesis the Spec of neither CAP nor CBP is a possible landing site of topicalization, [Spec, PolP] being the only landing site, and PolP can never be s-selected by a verb for lexico-semantic reasons. For these reasons, we henceforth adopt the PolP hypothesis of (embedded) topicalization. Assuming that the arguments so far are justified, let us return to the question of why an overt C is required to the left of the embedded topicalization.80 In our terms, the descriptive generalization can be stated as follows: while CA, which selects TP, can be empty if all the morphophonological requirements are satisfied, CB, which selects PolP as its complement, can never be empty when its Spec is filled by a topic. In explaining this generalization, it is important to note that Culicover (1992) assumes that PolP does not always have to have its Spec filled by a topic phrase and that it may also exist when only a sentential adverb is adjoined to it. Noting this, let us propose to extend Watanabe's (1993, 1996) idea about Case-licensing to the wh-licensing in a broad sense. Watanabe (1993, 1996) claims that Case-licensing is not established by a mere Spec-Head agreement relation but involves what he calls 'follow-up checking'. Specifically, if a subject DP which moves to [Spec, AgrS] enters into a Spec-Head agreement relation with the T+AgrS complex and the Case feature of the latter is checked off, then the latter assumes another feature [+F], which must be eliminated by further head-movement to C. It follows from this mechanism that every finite clause that has a Nominative subject must project up to CP. Since this consequence is exactly what I am assuming throughout this chapter, I would like to adopt his insight so as to accommodate another syntactic phenomenon. With this as background, let us propose that when Pol attracts a topic

116


phrase to its Spec and has its relevant formal feature checked off, another feature [+Top] emerges on Pol, which must be eliminated through the head-movement of Pol to C. Suppose also that this 'follow-up checking' takes place in overt syntax. Then, the sentence in (244a), which contains an overt C, has an intermediate stage of derivation, as shown in (244b): (244) a. I think that these books anyone who majors in linguistics must read.

Since as a result of adjunction of Pol to C the follow-up checking takes place, the derivation converges at the interfaces if the derivation proceeds unfailingly. On the other hand, let us consider a sentence that differs from (244a) only in that the complementizer is null, as in (245a). Its derivation involves a stage as schematized in (245b): (245) a. *I think these books anyone who majors in linguistics must read.

Here, too, the follow-up checking is mediated successfully. However, unlike (244b), (245b) still involves the null C that has not satisfied its affixal property. Then, the complex head c+ Pol must raise up to the selecting verb, resulting in a now familiar configuration as in (246):

This clearly violates condition (5) in PF. Hence, (245a) is excluded. One might wonder why the head complex is not reanalyzed here as C+pol. If this reanalysis were possible, a violation of (5) would be avoidable (cf. sections 3.2 and 4.3.2). Note, however, that we have been assuming that this reanalysis takes place only when two or more null affixes are amalgamated. The case at hand differs from the earlier ones in that the Pol head is not an affix.81 Therefore, we cannot resort to the reanalysis here. Note that, under our assumptions, the overt movement of Pol to C is necessary just in order to eliminate the newly borne feature [+Top] created by Spec-Head agreement in PolP. Then, if no Spec-Head agreement relation is established in PolP, the movement does not take place, either. If the Pol-to-C movement does not take place, the null C can adjoin to the selecting verb without violating condition (5). This leads to the prediction that if a presubject phrase is not a topic, CDP that immediately dominates PolP can be headed by the null C. This prediction is indeed borne out by the optionality of that in following examples (taken from Doherty 1997:203): (247) a. She says (that) when we get home things will be different, b. I believe (that) next year she'll be fine.


117

c. I suppose (that) ordinarily you would go somewhere else. d. He thinks (that) in some circumstances things would be better. Culicover (1992), proposing the PolP hypothesis, assumes that, while topic phrases and preposed negatives reside in the Spec of PolP, other adverbials that are not negative are not in the Spec but may adjoin to PolP. With this assumption, he explains why the presence of a sentential adverb voids the thattrace effect on subject extraction, as shown in (248): (248) a. This is the tree that I said that had resisted my shovel. b. This is the tree that I said that just yesterday had resisted my shovel. Putting aside the technical details of his account, his idea is that, when a sentential adverb exists, PolP is introduced above IP/TP and that, since it is adjoined to PolP, [Spec, Pol] remains empty and hence can be used as an escape hatch for the extraction of the subject wh-phrase. Although some empirical and conceptual problems with Culicover's analysis have been pointed out by Browning (1996), they do not undermine Culicover's assumption that sentential adverbs are not in agreement relation with the Pol head.82 Therefore, let us continue to assume its validity. Then, since the Pol head in (247) does not have to move to C for 'follow-up checking', the overt incorporation of the null C to the selecting verb does not induce a violation of condition (5). Hence, we can expect the possibility of the null C in the examples in (247). We have argued in this subsection that the obligatoriness of that in the presence of embedded topicalization does not support Doherty's (1997) IPhypothesis, since there is a different way to accommodate the fact under the CPhypothesis in conjunction with the PolP hypothesis of embedded topicalization. In fact, the well-formedness of (247) may undermine Doherty's argument based on the IP-hypothesis and the prohibition against adjunction to argumental projection. We have also argued that the IP-adjunction analysis of topicalization is problematic in several respects. 2.9.4.4 A Summary We have argued in this section that no pieces of the alleged evidence for the IPhypothesis of the that-less finite clauses are convincing, since the CP-hypothesis can accommodate all the relevant data presented in support of the IP-hypothesis as plausibly, or in a preferable fashion. Furthermore, the CP-hypothesis has the advantage of being able to explain the generalization in (73) and to describe the subcategorization frame in a simpler way than the IP-hypothesis. For these reasons, we conclude that the CP-hypothesis of the that-less finite clauses is on the right track.


118 2.10

Conclusion

We have argued in this chapter that, under the assumption that every finite clause is CP, and that the null C is universally affixal, both the intra-linguistic and crosslinguistic restrictions on the occurrence of the null C in a finite nonfactive complement clause are attributed to the condition on inflectional affixes (5) and a set of parameters with respect to overt verb raising. The descriptive generalization we have explained is that, if the null C is impossible in a finite nonfactive complement clause, the verb that selects it is overtly raised to a higher functional head position. Assuming that ECM complements are CP headed by the null C and that the affixal property of the null C can be satisfied by an overt element that moves through its Spec successive cyclically, we have also accounted for the fact that the wh-movement of the embedded subject makes the ECM construction available in Romance languages. The second assumption was extended to explain why raising verbs/adjectives cannot be nominalized but are allowed in overt verb raising languages. The auxiliary assumption that raising complements are CP and that NP-raising also moves through [Spec, C] was independently motivated. In section 9, we discussed several remaining problems with the present theory. In particular, we provided a unified account for the fact that no factive complements can be headed by the null C and the fact that a that-less complement cannot be topicalized, under the assumption, from Ormazabal (1995), that factive complements undergo LF movement out of VP. The environment in which the null C is satisfied by raising of the clausemate verb to the C was identified with the subjunctive complement. The trigger of the V-to-C in it was argued to be the modality feature in a functional head that resides between CP and IP. Finally, we argued against each of the major arguments for the hypothesis that that-less finite clauses are IP, rather than CP. What remains to be answered is the question why (it appears that) every finite clause must be CP, whereas infinitive clauses seem to vary in their categorial status, that is, ECM and raising complements are CP, while control complements are IP. In deriving this distinction, we have capitalized on the idea, sometimes referred to as the Canonical Structural Realization (CSR) (Grimshaw 1979), according to which the semantic notion 'proposition' is canonically realized as CP, whereas 'event' is canonically realized as IP. However, the distinction between proposition and event has not yet been property formalized, and certain exceptions to the CSR remain to be explained. We leave the issue open for future research. What appears to be less recalcitrant are some restrictions on the occurrence of the null C in the complement of a nominal category, some of which have already been discussed in this chapter. Above all, we have attributed the impossibility of the null C in the complement of a derived nominal in English to the claim that nominalization is derived by syntactic verb raising to a nominalizing suffix. Essentially, this is a unified treatment of the fact that verbs in French cannot select a finite clause headed by the null C and the fact that


119

derived nominals in English cannot do so. In this sense, we are in a unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. The next chapter is devoted to a more comprehensive analysis of the distribution of the null C in the complement of a nominal category.

Notes 1. As an anonymous reviewer points out to me, the phenomenon addressed here has been the topic of recent focus within Optimality Theoretic (OT) syntactic approaches; in particular, a solution to the problem raised by the contrast between (la) and (1b) has been offered by a series of papers beginning with Pesetsky (1998 [1996]). According to the reviewer, discussion and related proposals are also found in Bakovic (1997) and Keer and Bakovic (1997). Pesetsky (1998) presents three OT constraints as stated in (ia-c) and argues that English but not French allows deletion of complementizer in a complement clause due to the distinct determination of ranking between two constraints, as schematized in (iia-b): (i) a. Recoverability (REC): A syntactic unit with semantic content must be pronounced unless it has a sufficiently local antecedent. b. Left Edge(CP): The first pronounced word in CP is the complementizer that heads it. c. Telegraph (TEL): Do not pronounce function words, (ii) a. French: REC » LE(CP)» TEL b. English: REC » LE(CP) = TEL In French (iia), LE(CP) is ranked higher than TEL, whereas in English (iib), LE(CP) and TEL are equally ranked (i.e., form a constraint tie). However, he has not mentioned how and why the distinct ranking is determined (and learned by a language learner); it seems that no positive evidence is available. On the other hand, we take the asymmetry between French and English as a consequence of the fixing of the value of the V-raising parameter. While we admit that some empirical data concerning the phonetic realization of CP-related elements merit an OT approach, our approach and Pesetsky's are incompatible in some basic assumptions such that while we assume that that-less clauses are headed by the null C, Pesetsky (1998), unlike Pesetsky (1995), assumes that that-less clauses are derived from that-clauses by deletion of that at PF. Moreover, the fact that the same verbs in a single language can or cannot license the null C depending on their aspectual forms, as is seen in sections 4.8 and 4.9, is utterly incompatible with an OT approach that postulates the rigid language-specific ranking such as (ii). For these reasons, in the discussion that follows, we ignore the OT framework. 2. In fact, we cannot identify the zero affix with overt inflections for the following reasons. First, while there is no zero affix that can appear inside derivational suffixes like -ness, -ly, -fid, there are many inflectional suffixes that can appear inside these suffixes, such as affectedness, hurriedly, handsful (cf. also Fabb 1984:151). Second, as Pesetsky (1992) points out, there are many -er nominals or -able adjectives derived from zeroderived verbs (they are notorious exceptions to Myers's generalization), and nevertheless, climbedable, ranner, documentedable, documentinger are unexceptionally ill-formed (cf. also Bouchard 1995 for another exception to Myers's generalization, i.e., -ingadj. These

120


two points suggest that the ill-formedness of the words in (4a) and those in (4b) stems from different reasons. See Pesetsky (1995:81-83) for a more detailed discussion. 3. Note that there are two systematic exceptions to Myers's Generalization: the deverbal nominalizer -er and the deverbal adjectivizer -able may suffix to most zeroderived words, including the denominal verbs such as accent, document, and envy. To the extent that I am not concerned with the two suffixes, however, the problem is irrelevant for our discussion. As pointed out in Carlson and Roeper (1980) and discussed in Grimshaw (1990), the -er nominals cannot take a sentential complement: (i) a. He was the first observer of the interaction. b. *He was the first observer that the interaction took place. (Grimshaw 1990:101) Therefore, whatever explanation is available to the ill-formedness of (ib), a potential interaction between the null C and the suffix -er can be excluded on grounds independent of condition (5). As an anonymous reviewer points out, the verbs suffixed by -able cannot take a complement clause headed by the null C, even if the original verbs can: (ii) a. It is unbelievable *(that) John could be so late. b. I can't believe (that) John could be so late. Given the exceptional nature of the suffix -able with respect to condition (5), we cannot argue that (iia), without that, violates condition (5) because the null C is incorporated to the verb stem before the suffix -able is attached to it. However, a different account can be given to the obligatoriness of that in (iia). The sentential complement to the deverbal adjective is not its internal argument but its extraposed subject, as is suggested by the possibility of replacing the expletive it by the clause. A bona-fide internal argument cannot replace the expletive it, as shown in (iiib): (iii) a. [That John could be so late] is unbelievable, b. *[That John is sick] seems/appears. Then, we can argue that the null C cannot occur in in (iia) because, if it is right-adjoined to VP/IP, the null C cannot move to the lexical head without violating the Adjunct Condition. In other words, the null C is excluded in (iia) for the same reasons as (iv): (iv)

*Whati did the man arrive [that obtained ti]?

Therefore, no problem arises even if we assume that the distribution of the two exceptional suffixes -er and -able is not constrained by condition (5). 4. Since came is an unaccusative verb, one might argue that the null C can adjoin to the selecting verb before the CP undergoes topicalization, and thereby satisfy its morphological requirement. The same comment also applies to the cases of passivization of the CP as in (ib): (i) a. I can't believe (that) he has done it. b. [*(That) he has done it],, I can't believe t.


121

Suppose, however, following Chomsky (1995:chapter 4), that every movement is triggered by the necessity of formal feature checking and that Attract-F cannot apply to a trace or a category headed by a trace, since traces do not have a relevant feature that can enter into a check relation. It follows from this that the C-to-V movement, if it applies in (8) and (ib), must take place after the CP is fronted to the sentence-initial position. Then, it is ruled out by the prohibition against lowering. See also section 9.2 in this chapter and section 2.2 in chapter 3 for a discussion based on the prohibition against attracting traces. 5. We cannot assume that all null heads are affixal. Thus, the functional category v is not affixal in, at least, English and French. Otherwise, the finite verb raising to T in French would be ruled out by condition (5). The nonaffixal nature of v is compatible with my tacit assumption that overt verb raising to v is not required in English, which is a departure from Chomsky's (1995:chapter 4) original assumption about v. I thank Yuji Hatakeyama for reminding me of this issue. See chapter 3, section 5.2.3, for a detailed discussion of this issue. Another important issue relevant at this point is that our treatment of the null C is incompatible with Bobaljik's (1994) theory of 'affixation under adjacency'. This is because, if the null C can satisfy the affixation requirement under adjacency with the main verb, the verb raising to v does not result in a violation of condition (5), since it has not undergone syntactic affixation by the null C. However, I admit that there may be affixes that satisfy their morphological requirement under 'linear adjacency' in Bobaljik's sense. The tense feature in English may be one such candidate. I simply deny that all affixes are satisfied in this way. One support for this distinction is that while the adjacency between T and V is not broken by the intervention of a phrasal adverb, as shown by the wellformedness of John never laughs, the adjacency between V and the null C is, as shown by the obligatoriness of that in (17a-d). 6. It seems that overt raising of infinitive verbs is optional in French: (i) a. A peine parler 1'italien apres cinq ans d'etude ... To hardly speak Italian after years of hard work ...' b. Parler a peine 1'italien apres ... (cf. Pollock 1989:377-381) However, I argue in section 9.1 that the V in (ia) also has been raised to v and that the apparent optionality of verb-movement results from distinct placement of the adverb. 7. Hiromu Sakai (personal communication) suggests that given the theory of verbal inflection advocated in Lasnik (1999), an alternative explanation can be given to the contrast between English and French with respect to the possibility of the null C, under the assumption, contrary to mine, that the null C is a derivational suffix. Lasnik (1999) proposes that, in English, a finite verb is introduced in syntax in a bare form and is phonologically merged with the tense morpheme in T under the 'adjacency' in Bobalijk's sense, whereas in French, a finite verb is introduced in syntax in its surface form, with all inflectional morphemes incorporated in it, and is moved to T for the sake of feature checking. Given this proposal and his assumption about the null C, Sakai suggests that the null C is excluded in French because it must incorporate to the finite verb that is a complex of the verb stem and an inflectional morpheme (cf. the definition of condition (5)), while it is permitted in English because what appears to be an inflected verb in the language is actually a verb stem and because affixation of the null C to the verb stem in syntax and the subsequent merger of the inflectional morpheme to the V+C complex in the PF component after Spell-Out does not lead to a violation of condition (5). This solution to the relevant

122


asymmetry between French and English is ingenious and probably more explanatory. However, I do not adopt it here because it cannot extend to account for the impossibility of the null C in the complement of a noun, which we account for under the assumption that the null C is an inflectional affix. 8. An anonymous reviewer points out that while he/she agrees with the judgments in (17), he/she feels the following examples perfectly well-formed without that: (i) a. It seems to me (that) he forgot his keys. b. It seems to the students (that) you will be the one most likely to win. Doherty (1997) also points out that (ii) is perfectly well-formed without that: (ii)

I said to Mary (that) he was in error. (ibid.:210)

One property which all these examples have in common and which is not shared by (17d) is that the 'root clause' is affirmative. As Hooper and Thompson (1973) and Hooper (1975) point out, assertive nonfactive predicates such as think, say, and seem, can occur in the sentence-final position as a parenthetical expression, and in this case their prepositional arguments can be without an overt C: (iii) a. The wizard will deny your request, I think. b. He wants to hire a woman, he says. c. Many of the applicants are women, it seems. (Hooper 1975:94) However, this parenthetical use is blocked when the assertive predicates are negated: (iv) a. *The door is closed, I don't think, (ibid.: 107) b. *He wants to hire a woman, he doesn't say. c. *Many of the applicants are women, it doesn't seem. (ibid.:95) Given these facts, we can argue that when the overt C is dropped in the affirmative sentences, as in (i) and (ii), the assertive predicates, analyzed as parenthetical phrases, are left-adjoined to the finite clauses reanalyzed as the 'root' clauses, which are IP or PolP rather than CP in overt syntax (cf. section 7.5; cf. also Culicover 1991). The null C is impossible in (17d), since the same reanalysis is not applicable to a negative predicate. (17d) contrasts with the following examples: (v) a. I didn't think these living conditions are suitable. (Hooper 1975:105) b. He didn't say the door wasn't closed properly. (ibid.:105) These sentences unambiguously illustrate clausal embedding, and the possibility of the null C here shows that the null C here can incorporate to the selecting verbs, unlike in (17d). 9. This idea is suggested to me by Etsuro Shima. 10. This solution is suggested to me by Daiko Takahashi. 11. Although most of the tell-class verbs also allow the double object construction, some do not. Thus, for remind and convince, its Theme argument must be preceded by the overt preposition of. Hence, the perfect unification of the tell-class verbs and the ditransitive verbs is impossible.


123

12. We cannot claim that in the sequence 'V-XP-CP' the verb is always moved to a higher head position across XP adjoined to the left of an extended projection of V. Pollock (1997:271-272, note 14) observes that adverbs like hardly, barely, and merely can appear only in pre-VP positions: (i) a. *Bill knocked hardly on it. b. *Harry relies sure on it. (ibid.:272) Pollock then suggests that even if there are adverbs that can either precede or follow the verb, the V-adverb-PP order should not be analyzed as being derived by the leftward Vmovement across the adverb adjoined to the left of VP; rather, it should be analyzed as involving PP extraposition to the right of VP final adverb or as involving base generation of adverbs inside a Larsonian VP shell: (ii) a. Bill (recently) knocked (recently) on it. b. Sue (carefully) looked (carefully) at him. (ibid.:272) Referring to this discussion, an anonymous reviewer points out to me that the adverbs like barely and loudly cannot occur postverbally even when the internal argument is CP, rather than PP: (iii) a. b. (iv) a. b.

John barely/loudly spoke to his friend. *John spoke to his friend barely/loudly, (by an anonymous LI reviewer) John barely/loudly announced that Bill was innocent. *John announced barely/loudly that Bill was innocent.

The reviewer then suggests that if V could move across the adverbs at hand, then (ivb) should be well-formed. It does not necessarily follow from this, however, that a V-adverbCP order can never be derived by the leftward V-movement across the adverb. As Pollock (1989, 1997) himself admits, careful choice of adverbs is essential when arguing in favor of (short) verb movement. As far as adverbs like barely/loudly/hardly are concerned, the suggestion by Pollock and the anonymous reviewer is probably on the right track. Even if so, for adverbs like recently/carefully/quickly, which can essentially precede or follow the main verb, the possibility seems still left open that the V-adverb-CP order is derived by the the leftward V-movement across the adverb (in addition to the possibility that the CP is extraposed to the right of the adverb adjoined to the right-periphery of VP). Along these lines of argument, let us assume that adverbs like recently/carefully/quickly/sincerely are adjoined to the left of VP, whereas adverbs like barely/loudly/hardly are adjoined to the left of vP. Suppose also that V can raise to v but not to a higher functional head position in English. Then, the ill-formedness of (ia-b), (iiib) and (ivb), the well-formedness of (iia-b), and the following contrast are accommodated unfailingly under the V-movement analysis and/or condition (5): (v) a. I believe sincerely that Kay will be elected. b. *I believe sincerely Kay will be elected. (Aoun et al. 1987:574) 13. In Ogawa (1997) and an earlier version of this book, I assumed that Spanish is not an obligatory overt verb raising language (cf. note 15), and hence can license the null C

124


in a complement clause. This assumption was based on the optionality of the overt C in the following sentence (see Kenesei 1994 for the same kind of optionality of the null C in Hungarian): (i)

Te preguntan (que) que quieres. you ask-3pl that what want-2sg 'They ask you what you want.'

However, this fact can also be analyzed as follows: interrogative clauses in Spanish may have a recursive CP structure (cf. Watanabe 1993); certain verbs, including preguntan 'ask', may select either interrogative clauses with a recursive CP structure or those without it, whereas others must select those without it; and if a recursive CP structure is selected, the highest CP must be headed by the overt C, while if a nonrecursive one is selected, the overt C cannot occur before the preposed wh-phrase. See Plann (1982) and references therein for a more detailed analysis of the indirect questions in Spanish. 14. See also Cinque (1995) for the demonstration that what appear to be manner adverbs such as brutalmente 'brutally' in a preverbal position are interpreted as subjectoriented adverbs. 15. Spanish facts seem too complicated to analyze in a principled fashion, since it seems that some verbs can raise only optionally and that others do not raise at all: (i) a. Los estudiantes meramente habian hecho la tarea. the students merely had done the homework. 'The students had merely done the homework.' (Zagona 1988:149) b. ?Los estudiantes habian meramente hecho la tarea. c. *Habia escrito meramente la carta. had-3sg-fem. written merely the letter 'She had merely written the letter.' (ibid.:148) (ii) a. El libro no fue leido. the book not was read 'The book was not read.' b. *E1 libro fue no leido. (ibid.: 156) However, the verb that optionally raises in (i) and the verb that cannot raise in (ii) are a kind of auxiliary verbs (have and be, respectively), and the ill-formedness of (ic) may show that the adverb meramente 'merely' must adjoin to IP and that the verb cannot raise higher than Infl (against Zagona). Then, these facts do not undermine our assumption that the non-auxiliary verbs in Spanish always raise to Infl overtly. 16. Giorgi and Pianesi (1997:234) note that there are speakers who judge (34a) as perfectly acceptable and that the variation in acceptability is not a regional variation but an idiolectal one. Furthermore, they note that even those speakers who share the same judgments as we noted in (34a-b) find a sharp contrast between the following sentences: (i) a. Credeva tu fossi arrivato in tempo. 'He believed you had arrived in time.' b. ?*Credeva lui fosse arrivato in tempo. 'He believed he had arrived in time.'


125

17. Presumably relevant to the contrast in (34) is the adjacency requirement between an overt C and pronominal subjects in Dutch, pointed out by Platzack (1986:200), as illustrated in (i): (i) a. ... dat (gisteren) Lise (gisteren) ziek was that yesterday Lise yesterday sick was 'that Lise was sick yesterday' b. ... dat (*gisteren) ze (gisteren) ziek was 'that she was sick yesterday' This contrast follows if we assume that the pronominal subjects must, but full NP subjects cannot, incorporate to the Comp to its immediate left and that the adverb gisteren 'yesterday' can be adjoined to IP or I'. See also Vikner (1995:44-45) for a relevant discussion. 18. It is not essential for the moment whether or not the elements moved to C have an uninterpretable feature: it suffices to assume that, as a result of the movement, a feature checking relation is established in the checking domain of C. 19. As Vikner (1995) points out, the embedded V2 topicalization is impossible in the complement of a factive verb in these languages. The same is true of English, as well. See Watanabe (1993) for an account of the fact. By contrast, Icelandic and Yiddish permit embedded topicalization even in a factive complement. This constitutes a nontrivial difference between these two languages and other Germanic SVO languages. 20. As Vikner (1995:45) notes, the Danish man 'I-wonder', as well as the Swedish kanske 'maybe', are adverbials that occur in the head of CP, rather than the verb that takes an interrogative complement clause. 21. We are assuming a D-structure-like representation just for ease of exposition; nothing in our argument is affected even if Bare Phrase Structure Theory is adopted. 22. Rivero (1988), Lema and Rivero (1990), and Roberts (1993) discuss the apparent excorporation phenomena in Romance and Slavic languages, as in (i): (i)

Procel sum knigata. read-I have book-the 'I have read the book.'

(Bulgarian; Roberts 1993:37)

Here, it appears that the main verb has been moved to C across the auxiliary in I, in conflict with (57). Roberts (1993) and references therein argue that the movement of the main verb in (i) is a kind of excorporation, which might make (i) compatible with our (57), though I would like to assume that UG does not allow excorporation, and that (i) rather involves base-generation of the main verb in C. This assumption straightforwardly accounts for the fact that the apparent excorporation is limited to the root clause: (ii)

*Znam ce procel sum knigata. know-I that read-I have book-the 'I know that I have read the book.'

(ibid.:37)

23. Possibly, the native speakers who judge the C-drop as acceptable permit the Aux-to-Comp plus topicalization to [Spec, C], as in the Germanic SOV languages. 24. It seems that the raising of nonfinite verbs to T is not obligatory in these

126


languages. In fact, the raising of nonfinite verbs to T seems impossible in Icelandic and Yiddish: (i) a. Annie heimsaekir aldrei Island. Annie visits never Iceland 'Annie never visist Iceland.' (Icelandic; Thrainsson 1984:251) b. *Annie mun heimsekja aldrei Island. Annie will visit never Iceland 'Annie will never visit Iceland.' (ii) a. *Ikh avekshik dos bukh. I away-send the book 'I send away the book.' (Yiddish; Diesing 1990:41-42) b. Ikh wel avekshikn dos bukh. I will away-send the book 'I will send away the book.' For these cases, however, I assume that the nonfinite verbs obligatorily raise to v overtly. See section 9.1 for a relevant discussion. 25. Another case in which the null C is impossible in a complement clause occurs when V-raising in a VP-shell is obligatory, that is, the complement of the verb seem to NP in English. Presumably, all infinitive main verbs raise to v in languages in which finite verbs must raise to I or C. See section 9.1 for a relevant discussion. 26. However, OE differs from Dutch and German in some more respects, as argued in Lightfoot (1991:56-63) and Kroch and Taylor (1997). 27. Citing Hiltunen's (1983) observation that, among all embedded clauses with phrasal verbs of the call up type, V-Particle order was about 10% in early OE but suddenly increased to 90% by early ME, Lightfoot (1991:191, note 7) suggests that IP was head-final in OE but became head-initial by ME, which was presumably linked to the replacement of object-V order by V-object much in the same period. One way to make the assumption in the text compatible with Lightfoot's suggestion is to assume that the few instances of embedded V2 in OE is an instance of CP recursion, where the higher CP is headed by an overt complementizer, the lower [Spec, C] is filled by a topic, and the verb raises up to the lower C-head. 28. Van Kemenade (1997) argues that the V2 in every dialect of OE and ME obligatorily took place in the CP domain, on the basis of the lack of embedded topicalization and the compatibility of a topic with a post-verbal subject pronoun. On the other hand, Kroch and Taylor (1997) argue, following Pintzuk (1991), that at least the southern dialects of OE had V2 in the IP domain, as in Yiddish, though V-to-C was only optional in these dialects. Their view about the V2 constraint in OE is perfectly compatible with our present discussion to the extent that V-to-I was obligatory in OE. However, see van Kemenade (ibid.) for arguments against it. 29. In the historical development from OE to ME, however, at least three nontrivial changes happened: first, a radical shift from the SOV to the SVO order occurred particularly in the embedded clause, and in the matrix clause the diminishing of the OV order interrelated with the increasing the V2 sentences (Lightfoot 1991:63-72); second, some dummy auxiliaries such as do, gin emerged (Traugott 1972:137); third, the preverbal nonemphatic negative ne, which prevailed in OE, gradually disappeared and was replaced by the postverbal not/nat, which is a descendant of the OE emphatic nawiht/nauht/noht


127

'not-at-all' (ibid.: 146-147). It may possibly be the case that these changes have something to do with the resetting of the V-raising parameter. However, we assume for our present purposes that they had no direct relevance to our discussion. 30. Traugott (1972) notes that not in (78a) was an emphatic negative, though this does not affect our conclusion, since never in Modern English, which is a kind of emphatic negative, is reasonably assumed to mark the left periphery of VP. 31. Do is one of the new auxiliaries in ME that were not used in OE. As Traugott (1972:119, 137-8) notes, it was nothing but a meaningless or 'dummy' element to which tense could be attached, much as in NE, though its use was less restricted than in NE. 32. Our theory is falsified by the existence of an example with the following word order: (i)

XP Subj V W c Subj (where XP = any overt element that is not possibly adjoined to CP; W = not, etc.)

In (i) V is not in C, nor remains in situ, and hence it must be raised to I. 33. Otani and Whitman (1991) argue, in consideration of the sloppy reading of a certain VP-deletion configuration in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, that these languages are overt verb raising languages. We do not adopt their view here, since we are assuming, following Cheng (1991), that Chinese is not an overt verb raising language. 34. A dialect spoken in the northern areas of the mainland in Japan. 35. A dialect spoken in a small area between Tokyo and Kansai. 36. Some speakers of the Kansai dialect observe the asymmetry between the root and embedded sentences as in (90) and (94b), even in the presence of an overt C to/te. For these speakers, not only the null C but also the overt C may be an affix and attracts the clausemate verb to its checking domain. Hideki Kishimoto (personal communication), who speaks the Bansyuu dialect, which is spoken in an area adjacent to Kobe, reports to me that in his dialect, the null C is fully possible in normal contexts, and, nevertheless, other things being equal, sentences with an overt C sound a little bit better than those without it if (90) is embedded in a complement clause. Thus, (ib) is worse than (ia), and (iia-b) are better than (iic-d): (i) a. b. (ii) a. b. c. d.

John-ga ringo-o 3-tu to Bill-ga orange-o 2-tu tabeta ((te) yuuta). ??John-wa ringo-o 3-tu to Bill-wa orange-o 2-tu tabeta. ok/?Mary-ga [John-wa ringo-o 3-tu to Bill-wa orange-o 2-tu tabeta te] yuuta (koto) ?Mary-wa [John-wa ringo-o 3-tu to Bill-wa orange-o 2-tu tabeta te] yuuta (yo) ???Mary-ga [John-wa ringo-o 3-tu to Bill-wa orange-o 2-tu tabeta] yuuta (koto) ??Mary-wa [John-wa ringo-o 3-tu to Bill-wa orange-o 2-tu tabeta] yuuta (yo)

(Incidentally, he also points out to me that the overt C is yuute rather than to or te in his dialect.) The fact that (iia-b) are more acceptable than (ib) is exactly what we expect if we assume that the overt C in this dialect is affixal and attracts the clausemate verb in overt syntax. For the lesser acceptability of (iic-d) compared with (iia-b), however, I have no ready account for now, since the null C should be universally affixal. 37. For some reasons, when some element internal to the complement clause is extracted out of it, the complementizer hogy becomes obligatory, even when the extracted element is a subject:


128

(i) a. Janos otra mondta, *(hogy) jon t. John five-by said that comes (Kiss 1987:139) b. Kit mondott Janos, *(hogy) meglatogatta oket? whom said John that visited them 'Who did John said visited them?' This fact is also in conflict with Ogawa's (1996a) generalization on Comp-trace effects. See Kiss (1987:chapter 3) for a relevant discussion. 38. We have to notice, however, that the obligatoriness of the matrix V2 has nothing to do with the possibility of the null C, for reasons we discussed in section 4.3.2. 39. Just like derived nominals, most underived nominals do not allow the null C in its complement clause, as exemplified in (i): (i)

the fact *(that) IP

See chapter 3, section 2.2 for a solution to the fact in (i). 40. As an anonymous reviewer points out, the complementizer drop is essentially possible in the complement of the noun possibility: (i) a. I am frightened by the mere possibility ?(that) Mickey will come. b. The mere possibility (that) you were in store at the time of the robbery makes you a suspect. Since the embedded subject in (ib) is a pronoun, it is possible that the null C here satisfies its affixal property by the pronoun raised and adjoined to it (see notes 16, 17, and 55). However, we have no solution to the well-formedness of (ia), if the judgment is generally accepted, since we assume that there is no overt V-to-C movement in an embedded clause in English. The slight marginality of (ia) compared with the perfect well-formedness of (ib) may be significant. 41. One apparent problem with the assumption that the control complement is IP is that it appears that the desiderative predicate want can take an infinitival CP complement headed by the prepositional complementizer for under certain circumstances: (i) a. We want [PRO to leave]. b. We want [(*for) Bill to win]. c. We want very much [*(for) Bill to win] (Chomsky and Lasnik 1977:478) We cannot analyze the infinitival complements in (ic) as CP since this is incompatible with the CSR, which requires the infinitival clauses that denote an unrealized event to be TP. Rather, I assume, following Ormazabal (1995), that these verbs can appear in either of the following configurations:

When the overt preposition must appear as in (ic), we can assume that the main verb is raised to a higher functional head, presumably, v. On the other hand, the impossibility of the overt preposition in (ib) suggests that the verb want here cannot raise to v for the same


129

reasons as no verb in Danish can. 42. Under the LGB framework, Kayne (1981) argues that the control complement is CP and that de in French and di in Italian are overt realizations of the C head, which happens to be null in English. See also Watanabe (1993) for arguments for the CP analysis of the control complement in the framework of the minimalist program. Although this view is incompatible with the CSR that we are assuming, it is compatible with my observation that overtly raised verbs in Romance languages cannot select a complement clause headed by the null C: given the CP analysis of the control complement, the obligatoriness of de in (140) receives the same analysis as the obligatoriness of que in (1b). 43. On independent grounds, Ikawa (1996) claims that the trigger of overt movements is the suffixal status of functional categories and eliminates strong (and weak) features from grammar. For the case at hand, this theory states that overt wh-movement takes place in order to satisfy the affixal property of the null C. Although my theory is similar to his, they are incompatible in at least two respects. First, while he claims that the occupant of the Spec of a suffixal functional category cannot move further since the suffix would then be stranded, I am claiming that such movement is possible since the affixal functional head (like C) itself moves and adjoins to the occupant of its Spec at a point in a derivation. Second, I do not want to admit overt movement just for the satisfaction of the affixal property of the null C, because of a particular interpretation of the LRP. 44. We assume that the embedded subject in (147a) is properly Case-licensed, either because its Case-feature can move to the checking domain of v at LF or because the embedded T itself is a Case-licenser in French, as shown by the licensability of Null Case (see Boskovic 1996). 45. Since the matrix C is also affixal, it must attach to some overt element ultimately. If it attaches to the complex [ c+wh], the resulting structure [[ c +wh]+ )c] violates condition (5). However, suppose that the matrix C satisfies its affixal property by attaching to the null C adjoined to the wh-phrase, as in [[ c+ ]+wh]. Then, according to the reanalysis we suggested in section 3.2, it is reanalyzed as [[ c+c]+wh]. Here, condition (5) is not violated. 46. We assume, following Vergnaud (1974) and Kayne (1994), that relativization in French is a raising of the relative head itself, rather than the null OP strongly bound by the relative head, since the subject of the ECM complement can be relativized. 47. The same contrast as found in the Romance languages is observed in English as well. (i) a. *John is hard to consider [to be competent], b. John is hard to consider [intelligent]. (Postal 1974:194) In my theory, (ia) should be ruled in, since in English, the null C that heads the ECM complement should be able to attach to the selecting verb. Therefore, I have no explanation for the well-formedness of (ia). See Cinque (1990) and Takahashi (1997) for a solution. 48. We leave open the issue of whether the wh-in-situ in languages with overt whmovement, like English, is licensed in situ by unselective binding (Heim 1982; Reinhart 1992; Tsai 1994) or moved in LF (Huang 1982), and the issue of what moves in LF (i.e. features, categories, or larger elements). See Nishigauchi (1990), Kishimoto (1991), Watanabe (1992) and Chomsky (1995), among many others, for the latter issue. 49. See also Kayne (1994), Ikawa and Yasui (1996), Takano (1996), and references therein for other generalizations on wh-movement and their possible explanations.

130


50. Mahajan (1990) shows that Hindi manifests a different pattern of wh-in-situ permissibility. 51. What remains to be explained, then, is why English prohibits selection of strong Q-features at LF in every case. I have no explanation for it. 52. This conclusion is sustained independent of Kayne's (1994) LCA. However, we adopt some consequences of the LCA in analyzing some aspects of relativization. 53. Boskovic (1995) does not attempt to explain the fact, only stipulating that l(exical)-selection, which is different from both s(emantic)-selection and c(ategorial)selection, prevents main verbs in French from taking an IP-complement. However, these lines of solution to the relevant fact are not only ad hoc but probably on the wrong track, given the validity of our generalization in (73). 54. While French has the same form of C in finite complement clauses, Norwegian has a different form of C, at, in them. At is optional and induces the Comp-trace effect in the extraction of the clausemate subject. 55. We also put aside the obligatoriness of an overt operator or an overt C in the following sentence: (i)

The person stood up *(who) John criticized.

Kayne (1994:156ff) observes that a stranded relative can sometimes occur without either a wh-word or that: (ii) a. ?A book just came out I've been meaning to read. b. *?A book just came out my wife's been meaning to read. 56. One piece of evidence for this proposal, which I believe is rather strong, comes from the following contrast: (i) a. It didn't seem to Mary *(that) John was very sick. b. John didn't seem to Mary to be sick.

(=(18d))

We have accounted for the obligatoriness of that in (ia) by assuming that seem here overtly raises to a higher verbal head. If the account is on the right track, the same verb raising must take place in (ib), as well. Now, given that the raising complement is CP, the null C cannot adjoin to the selecting verb for the now familiar reason. Then, the only way for it to satisfy its affixal property is to adjoin to the DP that moves out of the infinitive complement through its Spec on its way to the matrix [Spec, T]. 57. If we assume that overt NP-movement in English is triggered by the strong EPP-feature of T, (50) is not ruled out by the (stronger version of) the LRP, though it is still ruled out since the uninterpretable Case feature of the matrix T remains unchecked. See Martin (1997) for discussion. 58. See section 7.3 for a modification of the definition of the Last Resort Condition. 59.1 am not claiming that all agentive verbs in English have to raise to v overtly. The fact that agentive verbs like claim or propose allow their finite clausal complement to be headed by the null C suggests that they need not move up to v. I leave the question of why only the agentive verbs that take an ECM complement must raise to v. Incidentally, Ormazabal (1995) argues against Pesetsky's Generalization and observes that what Pesetsky analyzes as agentive ECM verbs are actually factive verbs. Furthermore, he


131

relates the contrast between (178a) and (178b) to the following contrast: (i) a. *I announced Peter the bad news. b. Bill was announced the bad news. (Ormazabal 1995:242) However, he has not accounted for why (179a) is well-formed. 60. This assumption is not rejected, of course, if the two adverbs modify different elements. Consider the following Italian examples pointed out by Cinque (1995:291): (i) a. Hanno brutalmente aggredito 1' Albania. They have brutally attacked Albania.' b. Hanno aggredito brutalmente 1'Albania. 'They have attacked Albania brutally.' Cinque suggests that while the preverbal adverb has a 'subject-oriented' interpretation, the postverbal one receives a strict manner interpretation. Thus, example (ia) can be paraphrased as: It was brutal of them to attack Albania (even though the way they did it could well have been nonbrutal). Example (ib), on the other hand, is compatible only with a situation in which the manner of the aggression was brutal, (iib) is ill-formed, since trattare 'treat' requires a manner adverb: (ii) a. Hanno trattato brutalmente i figli. they-have treated brutally their children b. *Hanno brutalmente trattato i figli. Returning to the text examples, it is hard to see that the adverb in (183b) cannot be 'subject-oriented', since it is anomalous here to attribute 'completeness' to a person. Rather, if one loses one's head to pretty students, he would be, as it were, incomplete. Hence, it is impossible to position the adverbs in (183a-b) in totally unrelated positions. 61. As pointed out by Jackendoff (1977:73), the true adverbs but not the phrasal adverbs can occur preverbally in English: (i) a. Bill dropped the bananas quickly/with a crash, b. Bill quickly/*with a crash dropped the bananas. In my framework, this asymmetry may be accommodated if we assume that in English there is no position for manner adverbs other than the v°-adjoined position because of the unavailability of multiple Specs in vP in English. 62. In Valois (1991), DP corresponds to CP and NumP to IP:

NumP in Valois (1991) plays basically the same roles as DP in Abney (1987) in that it has to do with number agreement. However, the agreement in NumP is established between the determiner and the N head (= V+No), which is quite different from the one in IP in (ia), in which Subj in the Spec of IP agrees with its head. Furthermore, if, as he claims, a determiner occupies D in (ib), it is not clear why Num can mediate such a long-distance

132


agreement between D and V+No. For these reasons, in chapter 4, I propose the following structure of noun phrases, in which DP is parallel to TP (not AGRP) and KP to CP:

63. Another class of verbs whose complements do not permit the null C-head is called 'manner-of-speaking verbs'. The data in (191) are taken from Stowell (1981:398), who owes the original observation to Erteschik-Shir (1973): (i) a. Bill muttered [*(that) Denny was playing too much poker]. b. Ben sighed [*(that) he was sick of not getting fed]. c. Francine whispered [*(that) we should turn down the stereo]. Stowell (1981) proposes that, unlike the case of bridge verbs, there is no thematic relation between manner-of-speaking verbs and their complements. Suppose, now, that the CP that is not assigned any 9 -role from a head cannot appear in the complement position of the head but rather must be adjoined to its projection. Then, when the null C moves to adjoin to V, both the Adjunct Condition and the prohibition against lowering are to be violated. 64. As Rochemont (1989) observes, even the bridge verb requires its complement clause to have the overt C when the embedded topicalization takes place (examples are cited from Watanabe (1993:139), who credits the observation to Rochemont 1989): (i) a. John said (that) Mary should have read this book, b. John said *(that) this book, Mary should have read. Assuming that embedded topicalization also involves a recursive CP structure, Watanabe (1993) provides a unified explanation to the obligatoriness of that in (195) and (ib). However, our explanation of the fact in (191) in the text cannot be extended to that in (ib). See section 9.4.3 for further discussion. 65. Karttunen (1971) calls verbs like know, realize, and see 'semifactives.' These verbs allow their complement CP to be headed by the null C, as observed in Hooper (1975): (i) a. I see you have bought a new car, haven't you? b. I realize John is gullible. c. I know you've been waiting a long time, haven't you? Given this fact, we may consider them not to be factive, as in Hooper and Thompson (1973). In fact, the verbs see and know, for example, do not allow expressions like (ii): (ii) a. *I see the fact that the Bruins lost. b. *I know the fact that you're not speaking to me. (Hooper and Thompson 1973:481) 66. In his proposal that ECM complements are CP, Ormazabal provides the same explanation to the well-known fact that factive predicates do not license ECM: (i)

*He regrets Bacon to be the real author. (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970)


133

67. See Diesing (1992) and subsequent works for the LF movement of presuppositional NPs in English. 68. There are both conceptual and empirical reasons to eliminate the PBC from UG. First, consider the sentence in (ib), which was argued to be a typical violation of the PBC since it is far worse than (ia), which involves only a violation of the Subjacency condition: (i) a. ??[Which picture of whom], do you wonder who bought ti? b. *[Which picture of t]j do you wonder who, bought tj (Saito 1989) However, Kitahara (1994) argues that the derivation of (ib) involves two violations of the Minimal Link Condition (MLC), since who is moved to the embedded [Spec, C] across which that c-commands it and which picture of t is moved to the matrix [Spec, C] across who that c-commands it. If (ib) is independently ruled out in this way, the PBC is no longer necessary. Second, the PBC is descriptively inadequate, since it incorrectly rules out well-formed sentences that involve unbound traces. Consider the contrast between (iia) and (iib), taken from Muller (1996:355, 358): (ii) a. [t. Geresen]j hat keiner das Buch, tj read has no one-Nom the book-Acc 'No one has read the book.' b. *da [ti zu lesen] keiner das Buchi versucht hat. that to read no one-Norn the book-Ace tried has 'that no one has tried to read the book.' Both these sentences involve the scrambling of the object NP plus proposing of the VP that contains the trace of the scrambled object and should violate the PBC, though only (iib) is ill-formed. While the 'remnant VP' proposing in (iia) is topicalization to [Spec, C], the one in (iib) is scrambling since the latter occurs in an embedded context. On the basis of this contrast and others, Miiller (1996) argues that the PBC is not adequate as a descriptive generalization, either, and proposes that its effects occur if and only if a trace and the phrase that contains the trace are of the same type. Since topicalization and scrambling are not the same type of movement, their traces are also of different types. Hence, (iia) is wellformed. On the other hand, the VP that contains the trace of a scrambled phrase is scrambled in (iib). Hence, it is ruled out. It is fully possible to subsume Muller's generalization to Kitahara's MLC-based explanation of the PBC effects. Anyway, it is clear that we cannot apply the MLC-based explanation to the ill-formedness of (203), since the incorporation of the null C and the movement of the CP are undoubtedly two different types of movement. 69. This suggestion implies that UG does not allow excorporation of an X°-element adjoined to another head. Then, Robert's (1993) argument for the presence of excorporation in Slavic languages needs to be reconsidered along the lines we suggested in note 22. 70. Higginbotham's (1980) 'PRO Gate' is at issue there. 71. Terzi bases his argument for the necessity of MP on the existence of languages in which an overt complementizer may co-occur with a subjunctive particle. See also (209b) in Romanian. As Terzi notes, however, the Greek counterpart of (209b) is illformed. We put aside this cross-linguistic difference in this book. 72. The idea that subjunctive clauses have a special functional category for

134


modality has been put forward in Rivero (1994), Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) (henceforth G&P), and Terzi (1997). More specifically, G&P suggest that a modality feature triggers covert verb movement to MOOD, which they propose as the special functional category. However, they claim, unlike us, that subjunctive clauses lack CP, and that MOOD, which may form a syncretic category with AGR, realizes as an overt complementizer if it is independent of AGR (in this case verb movement to MOOD is assumed to take place covertly), whereas it overtly triggers verb raising to the effect of subject-verb inversion if it is syncretic with AGR to form a single head MOOD/AGR (ibid.:239). A serious problem with their analysis of the optionality of complementizer in subjunctive clauses is the fact that an overt complementizer can co-occur with a subjunctive particle in Romanian and Balkan languages other than Modern Greek, which suggests that CP is necessary independently of MOODP. Incidentally, the V-to-C movement in Germanic languages is also known to take place in the subjunctive complement of bridge verbs, and the fact has been analyzed in terms of the assumption that C acquires the feature [+V] (Holmberg 1986), that C assigns Nominative Case to IP-Spec (Platzack 1986), that C must license VP (Weerman 1989), that C has the finiteness operator (Holmberg and Platzack 1988), or that C has features of tense and agreement (Tomaselli 1990). See Vikner (1995) for a review of each of these analyses. See also G&P for the observation that the embedded V-to-C in Germanic languages and in Italian take place in the subjunctive complements of different subsets of verbs (ibid.rchapter 5). G&P, following Poletto (1995), also emphasize that the Aux-to-Comp is a phenomenon essentially different from the verb movement in subjunctives even in Italian, which permits both. Recall, also, that in our analysis of the Cdrop in the Kansai dialect of Japanese, V-to-C movement in this dialect is far more restricted in that it can take place only in the complement of yuu 'say' and omou 'think'. I have no solution here for the difference in the range of verbs that trigger V-to-C among languages. 73. This proposal is in conflict with Giorgi and Pianesi's (1997:chapter 5), as stated in note 72. 74. Riemsdijk (1998) claims that the P-D Contraction (PDC) in German, which derives am 'at- the(masc.dat)' from an 'at' + dem 'the(masc.dat)', involves a syntactic adjunction process of a definite article to the preposition that selects it, rather than a mere phonological merger between them available under string adjacency, because the process is subject to the Adjunct Condition (AC) that should constrain only syntactic movements. At the same time, he points out that it is not subject to the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) for some unclear reasons. If the incorporation of the null C to the selecting head can be analyzed as a clausal counterpart of the PDC, then even if it conforms to the AC but not to the CSC, the fact would not be surprising: (i) a. It is unbelievable [*(that) John is guilty], (the AC effect) b. I believe [(that) he is right] and [that you are wrong]. (= (228a)) (no CSC effect) Notably, the PDC is generally not sensitive to the Subject Condition (ibid.:658-660). This fact is important in view of our argument in chapter 4 that the null K (the nominal counterpart of C) that heads a subject noun phrase can move out of it and adjoin to T without violating the Subject Condition. See also den Dikken (1995). 75. The following sentences are not problematic for our theory, since they can be analyzed as involving IP coordination in the complement of that, as bracketed, rather than CP-coordination plus extraction of the null C from just the second conjunct:


135

(i) a. I hope that [you can come] and [Harry can too], b. I believe that [he is right] and [you are wrong]. 76. I thank Makoto Kadowaki for bringing the relevance of the agreement phenomena in the existential construction in (230) to my mind. Incidentally, the well-formedness of (i) is not problematic for us, since the null C here is extracted out of both of the conjoined CPs in an across-the-board fashion: (i)

I believe [you're right] and [he is wrong].

The well-formedness of (iia) is also irrelevant to the CSC, since what is conjoined here is not CP but IP, as in (iib), and there is not an extraction of the null C out of a coordinate structure: (ii) a. I believe that you're right and he is wrong, b. I believe that [,p you're right] and [tphe is wrong]. 77. Even if one attributes the ill-formedness of these sentences to the Case adjacency condition, its theoretical status remains unclear in the current minimalist program of linguistic theory. 78. For some reasons, no verb unambiguously subcategorizes for CBP as its complement. 79. This problem with the CP-recursion hypothesis does not resolve even in the spirit of Authier's (1992) Clause Typing. According to Authier, there are only two types of clauses selected by a verb, namely, wh-clauses and non-wh clauses; the former are characterized by the presence of a wh-phrase in Spec of the topmost CP, whereas the latter are characterized by empty Spec of the topmost CP. However, if this is the correct generalization concerning clausal selection, we cannot expect the existence of interrogative clauses introduced by a declarative complementizer as in (239). 80. Watanabe (1993) argues that CP-recursion is derived when the head of a CP moves to target its own projection and projects a new CP and that, if topicalization to a CP-Spec applies, the movement of the C is forced to satisfy a clause typing requirement (Cheng 1991; Authier 1992). In this analysis, the obligatoriness of an overt complementizer in the head of the highest CP can be derived only by stipulating that sequence of more than one phonetically empty C is not permitted. 81. Importantly, we are not assuming that all null heads are affixal. Thus, the null light verb v which selects VP as its complement is not an affix. Perhaps, the null T in English is not an affix, since there is no overt verb raising to T in this language. Neither is the null D in English. 82. Notably, the that-trace effect is voided even when the negative proposing takes place: (i)

Leslie is the person who I said that at no time would run for any public office.

Since the proposed negative is assumed to occupy [Spec, Pol], no escape hatch should be available here. As Browning herself notes, however, the apparent negative proposing in (i) differs from that in normal circumstances in that it does not seem to trigger subjectauxiliary inversion. This conjecture is motivated on the fact that the auxiliary do, which

136


appears only when inversion has taken place, cannot appear in the same environment as (i): (ii) a. Leslie is the person who I said that at no time considered running for any public office. b. *Leslie is the person who I said that at no time did consider running for any public office. (Browning 1996:245) We may interpret this fact as indicating that the preposed negative in (i) is not moved to [Spec, Pol] but is base-generated in a PolP-adjoined position, in the same way as sentential adverbs in (245b). Then, its well-formedness would not be problematic to Culicover's (1992) original analysis. One piece of evidence for this view is that the topic phrase, which is no doubt moved to [Spec, PolP], cannot void the thai-trace effect: (iii)

*Leslie is the person who I said that, the public office, is running for.

3 Derived Nominals and Their Satellites

3.1 Introduction Since Chomsky (1970) proposed the lexicalist hypothesis of nominalization, it has been widely assumed that derived nominals are formed in the lexicon and introduced into the syntactic structure under the category N, rather than formed by some syntactic movement operations. There appears to be good empirical reason to adopt the lexicalist hypothesis, since derived nominals have a couple of idiosyncratic properties that are lacking in the associated verbs and that are not expected if derived nominals are formed from verbs in the syntactic component. Independently, the lexicalist hypothesis contributed to the refinement of a linguistic theory in such a way that it enabled Chomsky to propose X'-theory as a general schema of phrase structure, where X is a variable standing for the lexical categories N, A, and V (Chomsky 1970). In the following decades, X'-theory has been extended to apply to the only remaining lexical category, P, and to all the functional categories, including Infl, Comp, and Determiner (Chomsky 1981, 1986b; Abney 1987). Furthermore, Infl was split into Tense and Agr (Pollock 1989; Kayne 1989b; Chomsky 1991), although they have been being reunified as Tense with parasitic agreement features (Chomsky 1995:chapter 4). However, X'-theory, which has been extended and well-organized in this way, seems to have received sufficient motivation independently of the lexicalist hypothesis. In fact, its extension to functional categories has enabled us to reject the lexicalist hypothesis without denying X'-theory itself. Kratzer (1993), Fujita (1994), 137

138


Koizumi (1993, 1995), Chomsky (1995), and Matsumoto and Fujita (1995), among others, propose that the VP, which has been regarded as the maximal projection of a single lexical category V with a full-fledged argument structure, should actually be split into at least two independent projections headed by different verbal categories, in such a way that the higher verbal category selects its external argument as its Spec and the lower one selects its internal argument as its complement. If we exploit this idea for the analysis of derived nominals, one possibility that immediately comes to my mind is that a noun phrase headed by a derived nominal is structurally decomposed into a nominal projection headed by a nominalizing suffix and a verbal projection headed by the verb stem. In fact, given Kratzer's (1993) and Chomsky's (1995) assumption that the higher verbal category in a clause is a functional category, we can assume that the nominal projection in question is a functional projection comparable to Kratzer's VoiceP or Chomsky's vP. Under this hypothesis, clauses apparently headed by a verb and noun phrases apparently headed by a derived nominal receive a parallel X'theoretic analysis without adopting the lexicalist hypothesis, and hence the latter hypothesis loses its conceptual basis. With these theoretical backgrounds, in this chapter I propose a syntactic analysis of nominalization as outlined. Specifically, I propose that (certain subclasses of) derived nominals are formed in overt syntax by moving a verb stem to a nominalizing functional head (henceforth Nz), which is scmantically parallel to the light verb v in clauses. Evidence for this proposal comes from the fact that the null C is possible, if very limited, in the complement of N and from the fact that causative verbs without an overt causative suffix, which are not permitted in obligatory overt verb raising languages, cannot be nominalized in English, either. We also discuss some implications of the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. In particular, we argue, against Chomsky (1986a), that Genitive Case is a structural Case checked in a Spec-Head relation, and we demonstrate the parallelism between the predicate-internal structures of clauses and noun phrases headed by derived nominals. Among various similarities between derived and nonderived nominals, some of them are shown to be only apparent, whereas others are naturally derived from the categorial identity between them. Specifically, on the basis of Grimshaw's (1990) three-way distinction among derived nominals, we argue that complex event nominals (CENs) and simple event nominals (SENs) are formed in syntax by (overt) verb raising to Nz (hence, they behave on a par with verbs), whereas result nominals (RNs) and simple nonderived nominals belong to the lexical category N. Grimshaw (1990) points out that sentential complements to nouns are uniformly their appositive modifiers and that CENs cannot take a sentential complement, whatever interpretation it receives (cf. also Stowell 1981). She then argues to derive these facts from the 0 -defectivity of nouns. However, we demonstrate the infelicity of her generalization and argue, instead, that the

Derived Nominals and Their Satellites

139

appositive modifier reading of the CP complement to certain (not all) nominals is a result of the LF-movement of the CP with an uninterpretable V-feature to [Spec, D]. This proposal accounts not only for the impossibility of the null C in an appositive complement clause but also for the systematically different distribution of verbal and nominal complementizers in Japanese and for the fact that, while no CEN in English can take a sentential complement, many CENs in Japanese can. This chapter is organized as follows: section 2 indicates how the syntactic nominalization hypothesis can accommodate certain restrictions on the formation of derived nominals and reveals a weak point of the proposed explanation by showing an alternative solution to the same set of data. The section also presents a new proposal about CPs in apposition to nonderived nominals. Section 3 demonstrates that N does not assign inherent Case as Chomsky (1986a) claims but it is a structural Case marker. Section 4 presents stronger pieces of evidence for the syntactic nominalization hypothesis, focusing on various causative constructions in English and many other languages. In section 5, we discuss the parallelism of the predicate-internal structures between vP and NzP. In section 6, we consider whether and how derived and nonderived nominals differ in their syntactic status and provide a more detailed argument for the hypothesis that appositive clauses undergo LF movement to [Spec, D], Section 7 concludes this chapter.

3.2 Null Cs in the Complement of Nominals 3.2.1 Null Cs in the Complement of Derived Nominals Finite clauses at the complement of a (derived) nominal cannot be headed by the null C even if they do it at the complement of a corresponding verb: (1) a. John stated (that) there were many witnesses that testify Bill's alibi. b. John's statement *(that) there are many witnesses that testify Bill's alibi As outlined at the beginning of the previous chapter, the principles and parameters framework put forward in Chomsky (1981) has subsumed this fact under the Empty Category Principle (ECP). Thus, Kayne (1981) accounted for the contrast by assuming that V, but not N, can (properly) govern elements inside its complement and that the null C, as well as traces left by movement, must be properly head-governed. This account had a certain degree of plausibility since there were several asymmetries between V and N that could be dealt with only by the former assumption: (2) a. John believes Mary to have left. b. *John's belief of Mary to have left (ibid.:151) (3) a. The teacher gave Mary the letter. b. *The teacher's gift of Mary of the letter (ibid.: 152)

140 (4) a. b. (5) a. b.

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections Mary appears to have left. *Mary's appearance to have left (ibid.: 142) John is easy /difficult /tough to please. * John's easiness/difficulty/toughness to please (ibid.: 144)

Since the nominal subject of an ECM complement or small clause must be Casemarked by the noun that selects the complement clause, and since N was assumed not to be able to govern inside its complement, (2b) and (3b) were ruled out by the Case Filter. Example (4b) was ruled out by the ECP, under the assumption that the original trace of the raised DP Mary in [Spec, I] must be lexically governed in order to satisfy the ECP. The ill-formedness of (5) was attributed to the same reasons as the impossibility of the null C in (1b), under the assumption, due to Chomsky (1977), that the infinitive complement of a tough-class adjective is CP in which a null operator moves to [Spec, C]. It was not the case that this approach to certain restrictions on nominalization did not pose an empirical problem. First, consider the wellformedness of the following expressions involving obligatory control: (6) a. b. c.

Bob's tendency to lie to the authorities John's eagerness to please John's intention to leave

Kayne (1984:142-144) argues, following Postal (1974, sect. 10.2), that the structure '[NP's], N [S,COMP [NPi e] to . . . ] ] ' is appropriate here since [NPi e] here is PRO, which must be ungoverned. In other words, Kayne argues that these examples are compatible with his suggestion that N cannot govern inside a complement. However, how about the null COMP? There is no reason that it does not have to be properly governed only in this case. Second, there are a few environments in which the N can take a complement clause headed by the null C, which are illustrated in (7): (7) a. b. c. d. e.

John is making the claim [you won't need it]. (Ross 1986:90) I have hopes [the company will squander the money]. (ibid.:88) I have a feeling [the company will squander the money]. (ibid.:88) I have an idea [(that) she is ill]. There is no doubt [(that) we were wrong from the start].

The Ns in these instances occur in what Ross (1986) calls 'the modal construction', and they typically form a verbal complex with the preceding (light) verbs. Thus, make the claim is almost identical to the verb claim, have hopes to the verb hope, have an idea to think, and so on. The light verbs and the Ns have to be string adjacent, as shown by the ill-formedness of (8): (8)

*The claim [you won't need it] is being made by Jack, (ibid.:90)


141

Furthermore, not all derived nominals can occur in this construction: (9)

*I made a proposal [we squander the money].

(ibid.:88)

However, there is no doubt that there are some such examples, and the ECPbased approach to the distribution of the null C incorrectly rules out all these examples. Third, it seems that even factive nouns such as fact may take a that-less complement clause if and only if the subject NP in the complement is a pronominal: (10) a. ?The fact [it's out now] is what's important. b. *?The fact [your book's out now] is what's important. (Kayne 1994:156) Again, the that-less finite clause must be string-adjacent to the head noun: (11)

[*(That) it's out now] is wonderful, (ibid.: 156)

The (essential) well-formedness of (lOa) is unexpected under the ECP-based account. Fourth, in German, the V2 clause in the complement of a derived nominal can be headed by the null C (Muller 1996:396): (12)

[Die Behauptung [keiner habe davon gewu t]] ist naturlich falsch. the claim no one has-SUBJ of-that known is of course wrong 'The claim that no one knew about this is of course wrong.'

Whether or not the verb raises to C, the null C must be properly head-governed, though the raised verb, which is adjoined to the null C, cannot be such a governor for the null C. Then, (12) should be ruled out for the same reason as (1b). Fifth, as we have amply illustrated in the previous chapter, even the complement of a verb cannot be headed by the null C in many languages other than English. French example is given as a representative: (13)

Jean croyait *(que) elle etait malade. 'Jean believed that she was ill.'

If the ill-formedness of (1b) were really due to the assumption that the null C is not properly governed by N, then the null C should be possible in (13) since V should be a proper head-governor and there is no principled way to distinguish French verbs from English verbs in terms of their ability to properly govern empty categories. In short, the ECP-based account is too strong in its failure to account for the possibility of the null C in the complement of certain nominals and too weak in


142

not being able to accommodate the impossibility of the null C in the complement of a verb in many languages. We claim that all the problems with Kayne's account stems from the category-specific stipulation about whether a head can or cannot license the null C in its complement domain.1 Category-specific statements in general are better eliminated from grammar even if they satisfy descriptive adequacy, if there is an alternative way to account for the same range of data without them. If they are not even descriptively adequate, there remains no conceptual reason to stick to them. Moreover, the ECP-based solution itself is problematic, since the government theory has no conceptual basis in the minimalist program of linguistic theory. On the other hand, let us continue to assume, essentially in the spirit of Pesetsky (1992, 1995), that every finite clause is CP and that the null C is universally an inflectional affix that needs to be morphologically supported by the closest overt element. Then, we are led to predict that every null C in the complement of an overt category, whether lexical or functional, can satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the category. Hence, all we have to account for is the relatively smaller number of examples that require an overt C, such as (1b) and (13), the other examples being subsumed under the fundamental assumptions. Along these lines of reasoning, we have explained the obligatoriness of que in (13) by the condition on inflectional affixes as repeated in (14), and by the independently motivated parameter on verb raising, according to which verbs in French obligatorily raise to a higher functional category, I or v: (14)

*[[X+Y]+Z], where X is any element, Y is any inflectional affix, whether overt or null, and Z is any derivational affix.

If the null C appears in a French complement, it must adjoin to the selecting verb, which obligatorily raises at least to v. Then, we inevitably obtain the following complex word, which violates (14):

(15)

*[[V+

c]+v]

Hence, other things being equal, obligatory overt verb raising languages cannot have the null C in the same environments in which nonovert verb raising languages such as English can. The main proposal in this section is to extend this proposal to account for the obligatoriness of that in the complement of a derived nominal as in (1b). This extension is made possible by the hypothesis that derived nominals are formed in syntax by overt verb raising to a functional category headed by a nominalizing suffix. We call this 'the syntactic nominalization hypothesis'. According to the hypothesis, derived nominals are always 'phrasal' in that they are formed by amalgamation of two or more heads each of which forms an independent projection in syntax, as shown in (16):

Derived Nominals and Their Satellites (16)

143

[DP D [nzp DP-Gen (Agent) [Nt.Nz [vp V DP-Gen (Theme) / CP (Proposition) ]]]]

In (16), if head-movement applies to V and a V+Nz complex is formed, the complex is Spelled-Out as a single derived nominal (Halle and Marantz 1993). We assume that this movement obligatorily takes place as far as Nz is affixal or has a strong V-feature. As readers may verify, Nz in (16) is a nominal counterpart of the light verb in clauses, which in turn is selected by T, as in (17): (17)

[TP T [,vP DP-Nom (Agent) [v v [vp V DP-Acc (Theme) /CP (Proposition) ]]]]

Therefore, there may potentially be nonaffixal Nz's to the same extent that there are nonaffixal v's. Suppose that Nz is affixal (or has a strong V-feature). Then, V raises to Nz and forms the complex word V+Nz. Now, if there is the null C that adjoins to the selecting verb prior to the V-to-Nz movement. Then, we have the following word-internal structure: (18)

*[[V+

c]+Nz]

Since -ment in statement in (1b) is the head of NzP that triggers overt V raising, the null C is not permitted here. In this sense, our explanation of (1b) is parallel to that of (13). That this line of reasoning is on the right track is shown by the following parallelisms; one of them has already been discussed in the foregoing chapter, and another is discussed in more detail in section 4.2: (19) a. *John's belief of Mary to have left (= (2b)) b. *Jean suppose Marie avoir resolu le probleme. (French) 'Jean supposes Marie to have resolved the problem.' (20) a. *The teacher's gift of Mary of the letter (= (3b)) b. *Jean a donne Marie un livre. 'Jean gave Marie a book.' (French; Kayne 1984:193) Suppose, on the other hand, that Nz is not affixal (nor does it have a strong V-feature). Then, the V-to-Nz movement will not take place in overt syntax. Hence, the V in the complement of this Nz should be able to take a complement clause headed by the null C. (See section 6.4.4.) In our system, the overt verb raising (to Nz) in a noun phrase is a prerequisite for the formation of a deverbal (event) nominal, and therefore noun phrases headed by a nonderived nominal must have a different internal structure. In pursuit of the strict parallelism between clauses and noun phrases, I claim in the next chapter that clauses headed by a verb, noun phrases headed by a derived nominal, and noun phrases headed by a nonderived nominal have such parallel projections as follows (KP is an abbreviation of Komplementizer Phrase; irrelevant details omitted):

144


We also propose a mixture of (2la) and (21c) as represented in (21d): i

In (21d), a nonderived nominal (N) that takes a CP complement is selected by v, which is not an affix in English in most cases. Then, if v does not have a strong N-feature, there is no N-to-v movement. Then, it is predicted that the head of CP here can be null since it can adjoin to the selecting N without violating condition (14). Some of the examples we have pointed out as problems to Kayne's theory bear out this prediction: (22) a. b. c. d.

I have hopes [the company will squander the money]. (= (7b)) I have a feeling [the company will squander the money]. (= (7c)) I have an idea [(that) she is ill]. (= (7d)) There is no doubt [(that) we were wrong from the start]. (= (7e))

Among these examples, the noun idea in (22c) is clearly a nonderived nominal. Hence, the null C in its complement can adjoin to it and satisfy its affixal property unfailingly. This is why that is omissible here. As for the other examples, too, there is no doubt that they are result nominals in Grimshaw's (1990) sense, since they are either preceded by an indefinite determiner or pluralized. Although we discuss result nominals in some detail in sections 6.3 and 6.4, let us simply assume here that they are nondistinct from nonderived nominals in their syntactic status, that is, they are categorially N rather than the complex formed by V-to-Nz raising. Then, the fact that they can take a that-less finite clausal complement is not at all surprising. We are assuming that the affixal property of the null C can be satisfied by the closest overt element that shares some morphophonological feature with it. In other words, the selecting head is not the only host of it. Then, unlike the ECPbased theory, we predict that the null C that can satisfy its affixal property without adjoining to the selecting head can occur even in the complement of a derived nominal (whether it is an event nominal or a result nominal). This prediction is also borne out by the two kinds of examples we have already seen above. Consider (12) first: (12)

[Die Behauptung [keiner habe davon gewusst]] ist naturlich falsch. the claim no one has-SUBJ of-that known is of course wrong 'The claim that no one knew about this is of course wrong.'

Since the verb in a subjunctive clause in German overtly raises to C, thereby


145

supporting the null affixal C, the latter does not have to raise to the selecting head. Hence, condition (14) is not violated in (12). This is why the null C is possible in (12). Second, consider (10) and (11): (10) a. ?The fact [it's out now] is what's important. b. *?The fact [your book's out now] is what's important. (11) [*(That) it's out now] is wonderful. The contrast between (lOa) and (lOb) is reminiscent of the following contrast in a verbal complement in Italian ((34a-b) in chapter 2): (23) a. Non sapevo tu fossi malato. not know-1 sg you were-SUBJ sick 'I do not know you were sick.' b. ?*Non sapevo Giorgio fosse malato. not know-Isg Giorgio were-SUBJ sick 'I do not know Giorgio were sick.' Pronominals in Romance languages behave differently from full NPs in that pronominal objects must undergo cliticization to the left of a verb, whereas full NP objects cannot undergo the same operation. Given this, we have understood the contrast in (23) as follows: the pronominal clitic moves and adjoins to the null C for its own sake, whereas the full NP cannot move in this context. If the cliticized pronoun can support the null C in the same way as the raised auxiliary in (12), the obligatory overt raising of the matrix verb in (23b) does not induce a violation of condition (14). Now, let us assume that the null C in the complement of the noun fact cannot move to the selecting noun for a certain reason to be clarified in section 2.2 and more extensively in section 6.4.3. Then, the contrast in (10) must also be reduced to the assumption that pronominal subjects can cliticize to the null C, whereas full NP subjects cannot. The affixal status of the pronominals in English is supported by the fact that in the particle construction the pronominal objects but not full NP objects must occur between a verb and a particle: (24) a. Anthony picked it up /*picked up it. b. Anthony picked the paper up /picked up the paper. If the pronominal subject in (lOa) can cliticize to the null C for its own sake, then the null C can satisfy its own affixal property by the pronominal, and hence we can expect the well-formedness of only (lOa). Under this conception, the obligatoriness of that in (11) cannot be due to the failure of the null C to be supported by the pronominal. However, the contrast between (lOa) and (11) reminds us of a contrast in German as follows:

146


(25) a. Er sagte [er habe ihn gesehen]. he said he had-SUBJ him seen (van Kemenade 1987:47) 'He said that he had seen him.' b. *[Hans ist krank] ist offensichtlich. Hans is sick is obvious (Webelhuth 1989) 'That Hans is sick is obvious.' This contrast shows that a V2 clause in German is possible in the complement of a verb but not in a noncomplement position. Exploiting Webelhuth's (1989) idea, we have argued that a clause headed by the null C is of a verbal category, whereas every trace of CP created by its movement is of a nominal category, and therefore (25b) is ruled out in violation of the uniformity condition on chains, which requires that every member of a single chain be of the same category. More specifically, the CP overtly moves to [Spec, T], while leaving its trace in [Spec, v], and forms a nontrivial chain. Since the head of the chain is of a verbal category, whereas the tail of the chain is of a nominal category, the uniformity condition is violated. Now, the same account can also be extended to account for (11). In the absence of that, the CP, to the head of which the pronominal is possibly cliticized, is of a verbal category. Furthermore, it has been raised from [Spec, v] to [Spec, T]. Hence, (11), without that, is ruled out for the same reasons as (25b). In short, what occurs in (10) and (11) can be accommodated by a set of assumptions that are independently motivated on the basis of the phenomena in clausal domains, and no additional stipulation is necessary in order to deal with them. This is qualified as a rather strong case for a unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. There are apparent disparities between what is observed in the complement of overtly raised verbs and of derived nominals. First, while raising predicates in English do not nominalize, it is probably the case that overt verb raising languages like French have as many raising predicates as languages without overt verb raising like English ((177) in chapter 2): (26) a. The situation seems to be aggravated at Lebanon. b. *The situation's semblance to be aggravated at Lebanon (Chomsky 1970) c. La situation semble s'etre aggravee au Liba. (= (26a)) We have deduced this asymmetry from the claim that the raising complement is CP headed by the null C and that the DP that is raised out of it moves through the embedded [Spec, C] on its way to the matrix [Spec, T]. When the DP lands in [Spec, C], the null C affixes to the NP/DP and is carried along to the matrix [Spec, T]. Since it does not have to adjoin to the selecting verb, condition (14) is not violated even in overt verb raising languages. In this analysis, (26b) is ruled out since the Genitive Case-marker 's, which heads DP, is a derivational suffix that adjoins to the right of the maximal projection that undergoes a successive cyclic raising and fills [Spec, D], and since (27) violates condition (14):


147

If this analysis is on the right track, the contrast between (26b) and (26c) does not undermine the unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. Second, while tough adjectives in English do not nominalize, overt verb raising languages like French permit the tough construction as freely as English: (28) a. He is not easy to persuade. b. *His easiness to persuade c. II n'est pas facile a persuader. The syntactic nominalization hypothesis has accommodated the ill-formedness of (28b) by condition (14), under the assumption, originally due to Chomsky (1977), that the tough adjectives take a CP complement. If the tough adjective in French (28c) underwent overt raising to a higher functional head, (28c) would be ruled out for the same reasons as (28b). As is clear from the relative order among the inflected etre, pas, and the tough adjective, however, it is the inflected etre that is raised to Infl here, and the adjective remains in situ. Then, even if the null C that heads the tough-complement adjoins to the adjective, condition (14) is not violated. This is why (28c) is ruled in. Since the two apparent disparities between what is observed in the complement of overtly raised verbs and of derived nominals are shown to follow from independently motivated mechanisms, they do not undermine the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. In this section, we have argued that all the problems with Kayne's (1981) ECP-based account of the distribution of the null C are solved under the syntactic nominalization analysis and the assumption that the null C must affix to the closest overt element. Since our theory does not rely on a category-specific stipulation, it will be definitely preferred to Kayne's. The two apparent problems with our theory also fell under reasonable accounts. From these results, the syntactic nominalization hypothesis receives the initial motivation. However, there still remain two problems that need to be adressed. First, how should we derive the contrast between (7a) and (8)? We return to this problem in section 5.1.2 Second, we have to explain why the null C in the complement of the noun fact cannot adjoin to it, despite the fact that the null C in the complement of idea can, as in (7d). If it could, (lOb) as well as (lOa) would be ruled in. An appropriate answer to this question might necessitate a reformulation of the question, since it is not a priori clear whether the finite clause adjacent to fact is really the 'complement' of it. In fact, the semantic relation between the noun heads and the finite clauses that immediately follow them differs between (7d) and (lOa). We enter into this latter problem in the next subsection.

148


3.2.2. CPs in Apposition to Nonderived Nominals and Their LF Movement The following contrast illustrates that not all nouns have the ability to license the null C in the finite clause to its immediate right: (29) a. I have an idea [(that) John is ill]. (= (7d)) b. *?The fact [your book's out now] is what's important. (= (10b)) That this contrast does not come from the choice of nouns is indicated by the fact that that is obligatory in (30): (30)

the idea *(that) John would die

We have to refer to the semantic relations between the noun heads and the finite clauses to their right and to clarify the syntactic relations between them that presumably reflect the semantic relations. It is easy to find that the finite clauses in (29b) and (30) are in apposition to the head nouns, whereas the one in (29a) has some thematic relation with the head noun, as evidenced from the fact that it cannot be omitted. Thus, / have an idea does not have the idiomatic meaning that I think that something may be the case, but can be used only to imply that I know about something to some extent. The descriptive generalization that any theory has to explain, then, is the following: (31)

The head of the CP in apposition to an N cannot move out of the CP and adjoin to the N.

One might want to accommodate this generalization by proposing a category-neutral condition that breeds the effects of (31), as in (32):3 (32)

Neither the non- -marked (i.e., lexically selected) phrase nor its head can undergo movement.

Let us tentatively call (32) the 'Adjunct Condition'. (32) enables us to provide a unified account for the obligatoriness of that in (33a-c) and the ill-formedness of (34) and (35). The examples are taken from Stowell (1981:398), who owes the original observation to Erteschik-Shir (1973): (33) a. b. c. (34) a. b.

Bill muttered [*(that) Denny was playing too much poker]. Ben sighed [*(that) he was sick of not getting fed]. Francine whispered [*(that) we should turn down the stereo]. *[That Denny was playing too much poker]i which Bill muttered ti, ... *[That Denny was playing too much poker],, I think that Ben sighed t,, ...


149

(35) a. *[That Denny was playing too much poker]i was muttered ti, by Bill, b. *[That we should turn down the stereo]i was whispered ti by Francine. Examples in (33)-(35) involve 'manner-of-speaking' verbs. Stowell (1981) interprets these facts as indicating that, unlike the case of bridge verbs, there is no thematic relation between manner-of-speaking verbs and their complements, and hence these verbs do not properly govern the trace of S' (= CP). He claims that the obligatoriness of that in (33) is accounted for in the same way, since he assumes that the empty Comp must be properly governed. The last assumption falls under the original formulation of the ECP, which states that nonpronominal empty categories must be properly governed, since the empty Comp is one of nonpronominal empty categories. Moreover, Stowell proposes to give the same analysis to the obligatoriness of that in (29b) and (30) as well, under the (controversial) assumption that the CP in apposition to N is not its lexically selected argument but a modifier of the N. In short, Stowell proposes a unified treatment of the N-complement cases in (29b) and (30) and the cases of complement of manner-of-speaking verbs in (33), (34), and (35) by the ECP. Similarly, (32) covers all of these examples. As far as the cases in which that is obligatory are concerned, our account on the basis of (32) appears to be a notational variant of Stowell's on the basis of the ECP, putting aside the advantage that we are free from the government theory which has no conceptual motivation in the minimalist program of linguistic theory.4 In fact, Stowell's approach may be superior to ours in that he subsumes the cases at hand under the ECP, s principle which has a broader range of coverage than (32). However, a question remains in Stowell's approach as to how he can deal with examples such as (29a). If the CP complement to N were never lexically selected by the N, that would be expected to be obligatory in (29a) as well as (29b). In face of this problem with Stowell's approach, in what follows, I claim that the nouns 9 -mark or lexically select their appositive clausal complements (hence, (32) is irrelevant to the obligatoriness of that in (29b) and (30)) and propose an alternative account for the obligatoriness of that in these sentences. As the first step toward the goal, I present two pieces of evidence for the proposal that every CP at the complement of a noun has a thematic relation with it even if the CP is scmantically interpreted in apposition to the noun. Consider, first, the following correlation between the deletability of that and the inapplicability of the Complex NP Constraint, as originally pointed out by Ross (1986:85-88): (37) a. I have hopes (that) the company will squander the money. b. The money which I have hopes that the company will squander amounts to $400,000. (38) a. I am making the claim ?(that) the company squandered the money. b. ?The money which I am making the claim that the company squandered amounts to $400,000.

150


(39) a. I am discussing the claim *(that) the company squandered the money, b. *The money which I am discussing the claim that the company squandered amounts to $400,000. Given (32), the fact that the null C is essentially possible in (37a) and (38a) indicates that the complement clauses in these examples are either 9 -marked or lexically selected by the head nouns (both may be satisfied simultaneously). Then, as far as the same noun and the same finite clause are involved in (39a), it is the null hypothesis that the same thematic relation is established between the noun and the CP in (39), as well. The second piece of evidence for the same claim comes from the Binding Condition (C) effects. Lebeaux (1991:211) presents the following contrast, from which he derives the conclusion that the clause in apposition to a noun is at the complement of the noun rather than in an adjoined position. (40) a. *[Whose claimj [that Johni likes Mary]] did hei deny ?,? b. [Which claim, [that John, made]] did hei later deny j? Lebeaux's argument is summarized as follows: since the clause to the right of the noun claim is an argument 9 -marked by it, it must occur at the complement of the noun at D-structure in order to satisfy the Projection Principle. The whmovement in (40a) applies to the entire NP whose claim that John likes Mary. Since the R-expression in the NP is c-commanded by the coindexed pronoun he at D-structure, the Binding Condition (C) is inevitably violated. On the other hand, a relative clause is a pure modifier of a noun phrase, which is neither 9 marked nor lexically selected by the N head. Hence, they do not have to occur at D-structure, and they may be introduced in syntax after the smallest DP which claim is preposed by wh-movement, by adjunction to the moved DP in [Spec, C]. Given this derivation, the R-expression in the DP is not c-commanded by the coindexed pronoun he at any level of representation. Hence, the Binding Condition (C) is not violated, and the sentence is ruled in. If Lebeaux's argument is on the right track and if the Binding Condition (C) can be used as a viable test for distinguishing lexically selected clauses from adjunct ones, then the illformedness of (40a) suggests that the appositive clause in (39b) must be lexically selected at the complement of the noun claim. On the basis of these two pieces of evidence, let us conclude that the CP in apposition to a noun (N) is lexically selected by the N. This entails that we cannot attribute the impossibility of the null C in (39a) to condition (32) and that another explanation must be sought for the fact. Note here that even if we claim that the CP originates at the complement of the noun claim in both (38) and (39), this does not imply that they remain there in LF. In fact, some structural distinction needs to be made since, as Ross (1986) points out, modification of claim in (39a) by a possessive Genitive NP is possible (= (41a)), whereas it is not possible in the modal construction in (41 b):


151

(41) a. We are discussing {their/Myron's} claim that flying saucers are real. b. Myron is making {the/?his/*Suzie's/*Dr. No's} claim that dead is better than red. (Ross 1986:89) Moreover, when the complex NP is transparent to extraction, as in (38), the complex verb make the claim can be equated with a single verb claim, and when the complex NP is opaque to extraction, as in (39), there is not such a verb for discuss the claim of which the CP is an internal argument, and the CP must be in apposition to the noun phrase the claim. Since these differences are essentially syntactic, I now propose that the differences between (38) and (39) follow from the syntactic positions of the CPs at LF. More specifically, I claim that the clause appositive to an N moves out of the scope (i.e., c-command domain) of the definite article by moving to [Spec, D]:

This claim is an extension of Kayne's (1994) proposal about nonrestrictive relative clauses. Kayne proposes that restrictive and nonrestrictive relatives have the same syntactic relation to the head nouns, differing from each other only in that the latter but not the former move to [Spec, D] at LF. Independent of his antisymmetry hypothesis,5 he motivates this proposal in consideration of the semantic interpretations of nonrestrictive relatives. As he points out explicitly, 'it is not controversial to say that restrictives differ from nonrestrictives in that the former are in the scope of the definite article in [(43a)] whereas the latter are not in the scope of the definite article in [(43b)]' (ibid.rl 12): (43) a. The young man who I saw yesterday is a linguist, b. The young man, who I saw yesterday, is a linguist. He claims that this scopal fact can be captured if only nonrestrictives move to [Spec, D] in LF and get out of the c-command domain of the definite article, as in (44):6

This claim makes sense given the following considerations: in (43a) we cannot determine the referent of young man without determining the referent of young man who I saw yesterday; in other words, in (43a), the reference of the entire NP young man who I saw yesterday is fixed by the definite article. In (43b), the young man and (the man) who I saw yesterday independently refer to the same (abstract) entity, and the speaker happens to state the two propositions about the same referent in a single sentence. Thus, we can paraphrase (43b) as in (45): (45)

The young man is a linguist. I saw him yesterday.

152


No such paraphrase is applicable to (43a). Returning to the appositive clauses at the complement of N, it is obvious that they are not within the scope of D, either, in the very sense we are adopting. Thus, in (46), the CP that John is innocent and the DP the claim independently refer to the same (abstract) entity; it is not the case that the NP claim that John is innocent has its referece fixed by the definite article: (46)

The claim that John is innocent surprised every audience.

This parallelism can be confirmed by the fact that, while the presence or absence of the restrictive relative clause in (43a) affects the truth condition of the sentence, the nonrestrictive in (43b) and the CP complement in (46) can be omitted without changing the truth condition of the sentence as far as both the speakers and the hearers share the content of the proposition. Then, if Kayne's idea is on the right track, we are naturally led to the claim that the appositive CPs also move to [Spec, D] at LF in order to get out of the scope of D: (47)

[DP [CP that John would die]j [D. the [NP idea ts ]]]]

Note that the LF movement of the appositive CP is forced in order to establish the appropriate scopal relation between the definite article and the entire CP. Then, whatever feature triggers this movement (an issue to which we return later), the movement cannot be feature movement, for the reasons we discussed in chapter 1. Rather, the 'generalized pied-piping' is forced on semantic grounds, in a way fairly compatible with the Move-F theory. Given the LF CP movement hypothesis, we are now ready to account for why that is obligatory in such an appositive clause. Recall that in section 2.9.2, we argued essentially in line with Ormazabal (1995) that a factive complement cannot be headed by the null C because it must undergo LF movement out of the VP that immediately dominates it and because the LF attraction of a factive complement headed by the null C would violate (48), under the assumption that the null C overtly incorporates into the selecting head, leaving a trace in the head of the CP: (48)

No phrase headed by a trace is visible to the operation Attract-F.

In other words, we have attributed the obligatoriness of that in a factive complement to the same reasons that account for the ill-formedness of the topicalization of that-less finite clauses as in (49): (49)

*[He has done it], I can't believe.

Given the necessity of the LF movement of the appositive CPs in English, we can provide the same explanation for the obligatoriness of that in (29b): since D cannot attract a phrase headed by a trace, the null C in the appositive complement


153

of a head noun cannot incorporate into the noun; however, it cannot satisfy its affixal property otherwise; hence, it is not permitted in this environment. The LF CP Movement Hypothesis has other desirable consequences. Thus, given it, we can deduce the islandhood of the N-complement CP from the CED, which accounts for the ill-formedness of (50b), since [Spec, D] is a typical subject position: (50) a. The teacher who, the reporters expected [that the principal would fire ti is a crusty old fizzlebotch. b. *The teacher whOi [that the principal would fire ti] was expected by the reporter is a crusty old fizzlebotch. (Ross 1986:148) This idea presupposes the assumption that the CED applies to the LF representation rather than constrains movement (note that wh-movement in (39) takes place in overt syntax, while the CP movement is delayed until LF). This assumption is independently motivated in Diesing (1992), who argues that a presuppositional noun phrase, which she claims moves out of VP at LF, resists extraction out of it even if it is at the complement of V in overt syntax: (51) a. *Who did you destroy a picture of? b. *Who did you tear up a book about? Returning to the modal construction, we have already pointed out that the CP at the complement of N in this construction is not in apposition to its projection but is qualified as the internal argument of the complex verb consisting of the N and the light verb that selects it. Moreover, the definite article that occurs in this construction can be assumed to be defective, since it cannot be replaced by a Genitive possessor which has a definite reference, as shown in (41). Then, it is reasonable to assume that the CP complement in it does not move to [Spec, D] even in LF. Once this assumption is made, we can straightforwardly account for the fact that in this construction, the null C is permissible in the CP, and extraction out of it is essentially well-formed. Our approach to the islandhood of the N-complement CP and the (im)possibility of the null C in it is a significant departure from Chomsky's (1986b) approach to it. He suggests that 'it may be that nouns assign oblique Case and that this imposes an inherent barrier to government' (ibid.:36). However, such an account based on a category-specific stipulation is generally undesirable, and it is in fact a wrong solution to the problem at stake because it would incorrectly rule out extraction out of the N-complement in the modal construction. The suggestion that nouns assign oblique Case is also argued against in the next section. Now, let us consider the trigger of the LF CP-movement. Along the lines suggested in chapter 2, section 9.4.2,1 claim that every finite C head in English has an uninterpretable V-feature. I also claim that while any verbal category can

154


check this feature, D is the only nominal category that can check this feature. Consider the following contrast: (52) a. They were doing exactly the opposite to what I had told them, b. the exact time of departure This contrast shows that the same type of emphatic modifiers that add force to an expression (e.g., exact(ly), precise(ly), concise(ly)) are used adjectivally when they modify Ns but adverbially when they modify the definite articles. Since adverbs usually modify a verbal category, the contrast can be explained if D, but not N, can have a V-feature. If every finite CP has an uninterpretable V-feature, and if D can have a V-feature, then the V-feature of the CP can move to the checking domain of D without violating the principle of Last Resort. That this movement must be category movement is forced on semantic grounds. We have suggested that the CP complement to a noun in the modal construction does not move to [Spec, D] at LF. From the viewpoint of feature checking, it must then be that its V-feature can be checked off without moving the entire CP to [Spec, D]. Suppose that in the modal construction, the light verb v, which is lexicalized by make, have, and so on, directly takes the NP complement without mediating the lexical category V (see section 5 for another implementation of this idea). We are assuming that in a normal transitive construction, V moves to v to form a complex predicate in LF. Then, it is reasonable to assume that in the modal construction, the N moves to v to form a complex predicate in LF. Suppose also that the C head in English, whether overt or null, can incorporate into the selecting N. Then, the V-feature of the C is carried along to the checking domain of v automatically, as a result of which it is checked against the light verb. The movement of the entire CP is not forced on semantic grounds, either, since the CP complement in the modal construction is not in apposition to the N. Accordingly, an economy condition (cf. chapter 1, (12)) prevents the entire CP from moving to [Spec, D] in the modal construction. I have claimed that every finite CP in English has an uninterpretable Vfeature and that this feature triggers the LF movement of the appositive CP. Since I return to these claims in section 6.4.3, let us present just one more piece of evidence here. Stowell (1981:401) points out that the nominal counterparts of manner-of-speaking verbs cannot take a sentential 'complement': (55) a. *BiIl's shout [that I should get out of the way] surprised me. b. *Ben's sigh [that he was sick of not getting fed] was touching. c. *Francine's whisper [that we should turn down the stereo] ... Pointing out the sentences such as Bill's shout was very loud, Stowell suggests that the derived nominals of this class refer to the physical noise produced by the act of speaking, rather than the propositional content of the message. He then concludes that the ill-formedness of the expressions in (55) supports the view that the clausal 'complement' to their verbal associates is not their true thematic


155

physical noise cannot be modified by an appositive clause that refers to the content of the noise, despite that their verbal associates can take it, as in (56): (56)

Ben sighed [that he was sick of not getting fed], (cf. (33a-c))

Now, given our proposals about appositive CPs, (55a-c) are ruled out for the same reasons as (57), since movement of the CP complement of this class of verbs should violate condition (32): (57)

*[That Denny was playing too much poker];, I think that Ben sighed t{,... (=(34b))

On the other hand, the same CP is possible in a position adjoined to the right of VP, as shown in (56), because the position is already in the checking domain of V and the V-feature of the CP can be checked off in situ (cf. chapter 1 for the notion of 'checking domain'). This accounts for the contrast between (55) and (56). Before I close this section, one problem needs to be addressed. If the null C in an appositive complement clause cannot affix to the selecting noun by virtue of (32), and if some tensed clausal complements can be related to their selecting nouns only in the very appositive relation even if the latter are derived nominals (e.g., claim in (39)), then our argument for the syntactic nominalization hypothesis may be considerably weakened, since the existence of the LF CP movement suffices to prevent the overt movement of the null C to the selecting head. In fact, Stowell (1981) claims that any derived nominal that takes a tensed clausal complement is a result nominal rather than an action nominal and that the complement is in apposition to it.7 Thus, in John's claim that Bill is guilty, John's claim and (the proposition that) that Bill is guilty both refer to the same thing that was claimed by John, rather than the whole expression referring to the event of John's claiming of some proposition. He contrasts this with the fact that certain derived nominals that take an infinitive complement are action nominals, whose relation to their infinitival complements is identified with the relation between the corresponding verbs and their infinitival complements. He presents two pieces of evidence for this claim. First, a tensed clausal complement can be related to the head noun across the copula, whereas an infinitival complement cannot: (58) a. b. c. (59) a. b. c.

[Andrea's guess] was [that Bill was lying]. [John's claim] was [that he would win]. [Paul's explanation] was [that he was temporally insane]. ??[Jack's attempt] was [to finish on time]. *[John's pretense] was [to be my friend]. *[John's refusal] was [to go swimming].

(ibid.:200)

Second, while the derived nominals that take an infintival complement can be selected by a verb that s-selects an event, those which take a tensed clausal


156 complement cannot: (60) a. b. (61) a. b.

I witnessed [Jim's refusal to go swimming]. John witnessed [Jack's attempt to finish on time]. *I witnessed [Paul's explanation that he was temporally insane], *Bill witnessed [John's claim that he would win]. (ibid.:201)

If Stowell is correct in claiming that any derived nominal that takes a tensed clausal complement is a result nominal and that the complement in question is in apposition to the derived nominal, then the syntactic nominalization hypothesis is unnecessary in order to account for the limited distribution of the null C, since the impossibility of the null C in it can always receive an alternative explanation: the LF movement of the appositive CPs should violate (48). However, there are a couple of counterexamples to Stowell's claim.8 Grimshaw (1990) points out that 'knowledge (at least when it takes a sentential complement) does not refer to what is known.' This means that the sentential complement to knowledge is not in apposition to it, and, as expected, it and its sentential complement do not occur across the copula: (62)

*The knowledge was that Dukakis was ahead.

(ibid.:98)

Similarly, other derived nominals that correspond to semifactive verbs cannot occur in the same construction: (63) a. *His realization was that he was the cause of the accident. b. *His admission was that he was guilty. c. *His recognition was that he was lost. The ill-formedness of these sentences suggests that the tensed clausal complements to these derived nominals are their true internal arguments. The existence of these Ns undermines Stowell's theory, since he assumes that N does not assign Case to its object without mediation by of-insertion (which is not applicable to CP by virtue of the Case Resistance Principle) and that in the absence of Case assignment no 9 -roles is assigned to it in virtue of the Visibility Condition.9 In our theory, on the other hand, there may exist complement clauses that are not in apposition to the head nouns; they simply do not undergo LF movement to [Spec, D]. Note also that the verbs that correspond to (62) and (63) can (essentially) license the null C in their complements: (64) a. I know (that) you've been waiting a long time, haven't you? (Hooper 1975) b. I realize (that) John is gullible. (ibid.) c. John admits ?(that) Mary left. (Hegarty 1992) This suggests that the tensed clausal complements to these verbs are lexically selected, unlike manner-of-speaking verbs. Nevertheless, the head of the tensed


157

clausal complements to the nominal counterparts of these verbs cannot be null: (65) a. his realization *(that) he was the cause of the accident b. his admission *(that) he was guilty c. his recognition *(that) he was lost An ECP-based approach cannot account for the ill-formedness of (65), unless we resurrect Kayne's stipulation that N does not properly govern inside its complement. On the other hand, the syntactic nominalization hypothesis provides a straightforward explanation to it: since the derived nominals in (65) are formed by overt verb raising to Nz, adjunction of the null C to the selecting verb leads to a violation of condition (14). Hence, to the extent that some derived nominals menifest these properties, the syntactic nominalization hypothesis is compatible with the LF movement hypothesis of appositive CPs. In this section, we have argued for two points, under the assumption that the null C incorporates to the selecting head: first, for some derived nominals, the fact that their tensed clausal complements cannot be headed by the null C is accommodated by the syntactic nominalization hypothesis and condition (14); and second, the fact that the tensed clausal complements semantically in apposition to a noun cannot be headed by the null C is accommodated by the hypothesis that appositive CPs must move to [Spec, D] in LF and condition (48), which prohibits attraction of a trace or a category headed by a trace.

3.3 N Is a Structural Case Marker In the previous section, we have accounted for the impossibility of the null C in the complement of a derived (event) nominal by assuming a syntactic derivation of 'derived nominals', as schematized in (66):

This assumption is obviously incompatible with Chomsky's (1986a) proposal that the Genitive Case is an inherent Case assigned by the lexical category N. He accounts for the ill-formedness of (67) by this proposal and the Uniformity Condition as formulated in (68): (67) a. * John's belief [(of) Mary to be smart] b. *Mary'Si belief [ti to be smart]

(68)

If a is an inherent Case-marker, then a Case-marks NP if and only if it 9 -marks the chain headed by NP. (ibid.: 194)

158


In (67a-b) the subject NP of the ECM complement has to be Case-licensed by the N that governs it. However, the N cannot assign an inherent Case to this NP since it does not -mark the chain headed by the NP. Rather, the N 8 -marks its complement clause. Hence, the NP fails to be Case-licensed, and the sentences are ruled out in violation of the Case Filter. This explanation is crucially based on the assumption that derived nominals are formed in the lexicon. Under the syntactic nominalization analysis as in (66), both the Accusative objects in (69a) and the Genitive objects in (69b) appear at the complement of the same verb, and it is implausible that one receives a structural Case and the other receives an inherent Case. Rather, we have to say that both of them are assigned a structural Case (see Valois (1991) and Kageyama (1993) for the same argument on independent grounds): (69) a. The doctor examined Mary's stomach. b. The doctor's examination of Mary's stomach Therefore, the syntactic nominalization hypothesis is compatible with neither the proposal that N is an inherent Case marker nor Chomsky's account of (67) by this proposal. However, this is not a problem with our theory, since we no longer have to resort to Chomsky's proposal in accounting for the ill-formedness of (67a-b). We are assuming, following Ormazabal (1995), that the ECM complement is CP headed by the null C. Then, when the null C affixes to the selecting V in (66) and the V overtly raises to Nz, a configuration that violates condition (14) results. Another motivation for the N-assign-inherent-Case hypothesis comes from the ill-formedness of the following examples: (70) a. * John'S( destruction of portraits ti b. *its proof that Peter likes Mary cf. It was proven that Peter likes Mary. Boskovic (1995) rejects Ormazabal's (1995) proposal that ECM complements are CP by arguing that the conspiracy of the N-assign-inherent-Case hypothesis, which is allegedly independently motivated by the ill-formedness of these examples, with the Uniformity Condition (68) suffices to rule out (67) under the assumption, which Boskovic believes to be more natural than Chomsky's (1981), that every infinitive complement without an overt C is IP. However, I argue later that the examples in (70) do not support the N-assign-inherent-Case hypothesis at all. Note first that the ill-formedness of (70a) and (70b) may be derived from essentially different reasons, since the former involves long-distance NP-raising, whereas the latter involves expletives in noun phrases but no movement at all. These examples appear to fall under the same constraints just because Case assignment has been distinguished from Case realization for Genitive Case. In the


159

minimalist program of linguistic theory, however, there is no principled basis for this distinction, since there is no mechanism of Case assignment and Case is simply checked in a Spec-Head configuration. Suppose, therefore, that there is no distinction between Case assignment and Case realization. Then, it follows that (70a) must be ruled out by some constraint on movement, whereas (70b) must result from some licensing condition on expletives. A solution along these lines of reasoning is available. Suppose that Genitive Case is a structural Case and that the movement of John to the Spec of DP is driven by the strong Genitive Case feature of the highest D. Since the Attract-F includes MLC in its definition, the D in (70a) must attract a larger DP portraits (of) John, which dominates John. Then, (70a) is ruled out because an illegitimate attraction (an MLC violation) has taken place. Given the availability of an alternative principled solution to (70a), the failure of expletives in Genitive Case is 'the last fort' for the N-assign-inherentCase hypothesis. However, it alone is too weak to defend the hypothesis, since there is a way to rule out (70b) without recourse to it. Suppose that expletives are inserted to a Spec position only if its head has a nonoptional strong D-feature and there is no other way to check it (i.e., as the last resort). The finite T in English is one such head since its Spec can never be empty (the so-called EPP effect). Unlike T, however, D does not require its Spec to be filled. This means that, even if D can have a strong D-feature, it need not. Then, assigning a strong D-feature to D and filling its Spec with an expletive are doubly costly and hence prohibited by a current formulation of the Avoid Pronoun Principle. An independent support for this view comes from the fact that in Icelandic, expletives can occur in a finite clause if and only if their insertion is forced by the V2 requirement, as shown in (71) (the total absence of expletives in Japanese, which is a language without a forced agreement (Kuroda 1992 [1988]) may also support the view): (71) a. *(pao) er snjor a jorSinni. there is snow on ground-the 'There is snow on the ground.' b. Igaer var (*pao) mikill snjor a jorsinni. yesterday was there much snow on ground-the 'Yesterday there was much snow on the ground.' (Maling and Zaenen 1978:483-484) Whatever reason lies behind this asymmetry, we can account for the illformedness of (70b) with the same reason. Then, there remains no motivation for the N-assign-inherent-Case hypothesis. In fact, the hypothesis is problematic for several reasons. First, it is incompatible with the fact that a Genitive Case-marked DP need not be assigned a particular 6 -role. This fact is shown in the following examples: (72) a. the growling of the lion b. the raising of flowers ((a) and (b) cited from Chomsky 1957)


160

c. the cover of the book d. one piece of paper e. a man of religion

((c) to (e) cited from Murasugi 1991)

The Genitive Case-marked DP is assigned Agent in (72a); Theme in (72b); Inalienable Possessor in (72c); and Partitive in (72d). In (72e), of religion is a modifier that would not receive any 9 -role. If Genitive Case were an inherent Case, such a variety would not be expected, since an inherent Case, by definition, must be paired with a particular 0 -role. On the other hand, if Genitive Case is a structural Case and the DPs in (72a-e) have their Case checked in the checking domain of D at LF, these facts do not pose a problem, since there is no thematic restriction on DPs that have a structural Case. The variety of 9 -roles Nominative Case-marked DPs can have is well-recognized: (73) a. b. c. d. e.

The lion growled. The metal was hammered flat. John broke his leg. John fears the thunder. This chair has four legs.

(Agent) (Theme) (Patient) (Experiencer) (Inalienable Possessor)

This similarity between Nominative and Genitive Cases cannot be expected if we assume that Genitive Case is an inherent Case. A more serious problem with this assumption comes from the data in (74): (74) a. The sight [of Romeo absent] upset Juliet. b. John's expectation [of the sailor off the ship by midnight] is not known. (Endo 1995) c. John's calling [up of Bill] was a mistake. (Kayne 1985:1 12) d. The appointment [of John as ambassador] was published today. Here, the derived nominals 9 -mark their SC complement rather than a DP in it. Nevertheless, these sentences are well-formed. Therefore, I conclude that Genitive Case is not an inherent Case but a structural Case.

3. 4 Syntactic Nominalization: Evidence from Various Causative Constructions Now that we have denied the N-assign-inherent-Case hypothesis, the impossibility of ECM verbs to be nominalized, as in (67), appears to provide an additional piece of evidence for the syntactic nominalization: (67) a. * John's belief [(of) Mary to be smart] b. *Maryi's belief [ti to be smart]


161

Since (75) is ill-formed, it seems that the infinitival complement is not in apposition to belief: (75) a. *[John's belief] was [(of) Mary to be smart], b. *[MarVi's belief] was [tt to be smart]. However, the ill-formedness of (75a-b) may be attributed to independent reasons. Thus, (75b) can be ruled out because the overt movement of Mary to the Spec of a functional category selecting belief is an illicit movement to a non-ccommanding position. (75a-b) may also have a problem in that a CP headed by the null C is at the complement of the be-verb. Consider the ill-formedness of (76), under the assumption that be-vsrbs obligatorily raise overly: (76)

What the terrorists believe is *(that) they will hijack an airplane. (Boskovic 1995:35)

Furthermore, the derived nominal belief that takes a tensed clausal complement can occur in the copula construction, and there should be no semantic distinction between belief in (75) and in (77): (77)

The belief was that there is no relevant data.

For these reasons, it is reasonable to argue that since the infinitival CP in (67) as well as the tensed CP in (77) undergoes LF movement to [Spec, D], the overt incorporation of the null C to the selecting head (whether verb or noun) in (67a-b) is prohibited by condition (48). Then, we have to conclude that the ill-formedness of (67a-b) does not support the syntactic nominalization hypothesis at all. Given the paucity of evidence for the hypothesis (only (65a-c) so far), we would like to present an additional argument for the hypothesis on independent grounds. In this section, we do so in consideration of the following four kinds of causative construction: (i) the construction involving nonvolitional causer as a subject, (ii) the double object construction, (iii) the causative/inchoative alternation, and (iv) the 'speech act verb' construction, all of which provide us with strong arguments for the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. 3.4.1 Backward Binding in Clauses and Lack of Causative Nominals Showing that Genitive Case is not an inherent Case but a structural Case, we have assigned to the following expressions the parallel structures as shown in (79), abstracting away from head-movement: (78) a. The doctor examined Mary's stomach. b. The doctor's examination of Mary's stomach

162


Given this proposal, one might wonder why the structural Case is realized as Accusative in (78a) and Genitive in (78b). We attribute the asymmetry to the difference in the functional categories that select VP in (78a-b). On our assumptions, a subject and an object in (78a) are generated in the Spec of vP and in the complement of V, respectively, and Nominative Case features of the subject and Accusative Case features of the object in English are licensed in the configurations in (80a-b), respectively, where FF(obj) means 'a set of formal features of the object':

Checking of a Nominative Case in (80a) takes place in overt syntax; hence, the movement of DP-Nomi results in a Spec-Head configuration. On the other hand, checking of a Accusative Case in (80b) takes place in LF; hence, the movement of V to v and the movement of the formal features of the object DP to the V+v complex in (80b) result in a configuration of head-to-head adjunction. In pursuit of a strict parallelism between clauses and noun phrases, I propose that the external and the internal -role assignors are split in noun phrases, too. Then, we have the following structure for a noun phrase headed by a derived nominal:

(80a) and (81) are hierarchically parallel: both involve two lexical and two functional categories, the lowest lexical category being V. Let us call this the Maximal Correspondence Hypothesis (MCH). Given the MCH, we can hypothesize, departing from Chomsky (1993, 1995), that the Case feature of V may be either Accusative or Genitive and that which feature V and its object DP have is determined by whether they are licensed in the checking domain of v or Nz.10 Suppose also that, in unmarked cases, T selects vP, whereas D selects NzP." Then, V and the object DP in (79a) must have Accusative Case, whereas those in (79b) must have Genitive Case. Hence, only those two patterns illustrated in (79a-b) are generated and the other derivations are canceled due to feature mismatch. With these assumptions, we develop the first argument for the syntactic nominalization analysis on the basis of the backward binding in clauses and the lack of causative nominals. Let us first introduce Fujita's (1994) structure for transitive clauses. He claims, in an earlier version of the minimalist theory (Chomsky 1993), that the external and internal arguments of a verb are basegenerated in different verbal projections, as in (69) (cf. also Koizumi 1995):


163

In (82), the VP that hosts an external argument is higher than AgrOP whose Spec is the landing site of object shift. He proposes further that when the subject of a verb is nonvolitional Causer rather than Agent, it is generated in the Spec of another V which is lower than AGRo and higher than the V whose complement is the base position of the Theme argument, as in (83): (83) [TP T [vpi AgentyExperiencer [v., VI (MAKE) [Agrop AgrO [vp2 Nonvolitional Causer [v2 V2 (CAUSE) [VP3 V3 (INCHOATIVE) Theme ]]]]]]] One important point in (83) is that there are three different verbs that assign Agent/Experiencer, Nonvolitional Causer, and Theme, respectively. Another is that the original subject position is higher than the derived object position when the subject is either Agent or Experiencer, whereas it is lower than the derived object position when the subject is nonvolitional Causer. Fujita's argument is based on an asymmetry on the possibility of backward anaphora between the Agentive/Experiencer subject and the Causer subject, as illustrated by (84) and (85): (84) a. b. c. d. (85) a. b. c. d.

Stories about each other, please [John and Mary],. Hisi photograph pleased everyone,. Those pictures of himself, ultimately destroyed Bill,. News items about herself, make [Mary, laugh]. *Friends of each other, hit [John and Mary],. *His, father hit everyone,. *Children of each other fear these mothers,. *Each otheri 's relatives considered [[John and Mary]iangry].

Given Binding Condition (A), the ill-formedness of (85) is expected since the reciprocal included in the subject DP is not c-commanded by its antecedent in the object position. However, the well-formedness of (84) is surprising in this light. In particular, in (84d), the antecedent is embedded in the complement of the Cause verb, and it can still c-command the reciprocal in the matrix subject position. This fact is stated as follows: (86)

A Causer argument of a predicate may behave as if c-commanded by an argumental DP governed by . (Pesetsky 1992:146)

Fujita (1994) argues that (86) follows from the proposed structure in (83) and the AGR-based Case Theory, according to which the Accusative Case-marked object DP moves to [Spec, AGRo] in LF, a position c-commanding the trace position of the nonvolitional Causer subject. That traces can enter into Binding Condition (A)

164


is shown by the well-formedness of the following example: (87)

[Pictures of himself,],, Johni likes ty

(84) is ruled in for the same reason as (87): by reconstruction. On the other hand, in (85), even after the object moves to [Spec, AGRo], the position does not c-command the base position of the Agent subject, since it is outside the AGRoP. As a result, (85) is ruled out in violation of Condition (A). Following Chomsky's (1995) attempt to eliminate AgrP, let us modify (83) to (88). Note that this modification does not undermine Fujita's argument, since (88) keeps his point that the position for Accusative Case checking is asymmetrically c-commanded by the original position for the Agent/Experiencer argument and asymmetrically c-commands the original position for the nonvolitional Causer argument:

Given the Move-F theory, the formal features (FF) of the object DP move and adjoin to v in LF:

In (89) the moved FF cannot bind the Agent argument, since the vo-adjoined position does not c-command the Spec of vP. This is why the examples in (85) are ill-formed. Given the MCH, Nz corresponds to v. Thus, in noun phrases as well, V1 (CAUSE), if necessary, should appear between Nz and V2. Then, if (88) with v replaced by Nz is assumed, and if V1 (CAUSE) is a null affix (Pesetsky 1992), the movement of V2 to V1 followed by the movement of V1 to Nz will lead to a violation of condition (14), for the reason familiar from the foregoing discussion:


165

On the other hand, there is no problem with the amalgamation of V2 to Nz when there is no projection of V1. We therefore predict that the subject of a derived nominal can never be nonvolitional Causer, although it can be Agent or Experiencer. Tthis prediction is borne out by the contrast between (91) and (92): (91) a. b. c. d. (92) a. b. c. d.

the clown's entertainment/amusement of the children (Agent) John's humiliation of the audience (Agent) (Grimshaw 1990:120) John's enjoyment of the film (Experiencer) the public's delight in the book (Experiencer) (Rozwadowska 1988:148) *the movie's amusement/entertainment of the children (Causer) *the joke's humiliation of the audience (Causer) *the film's enjoyment by/of John (Causer) *the book's delight of the public (Causer)

The MCH that incorporates the syntactic nominalization hypothesis can rule out only (92) by condition (14).12 On the other hand, there is no natural way to accommodate the relevant contrast under the lexicalist hypothesis, since the derived nominals whose external argument is a nonvolitional Causer should be morphologically identical to those whose external argument is a volitional causer. They can be differentiated in the constitution of their argument structures. Given the lexicalist hypothesis, however, there can be no principled reason to exclude the nonvolitional causer from the external argument of a derived nominal. There are a number of cases in which a purely morphological process refers to a particular -role. Thus, the deverbal nominals headed by -er refer either to Agent or Instrument argument of the event denoted by the original verb. However, the matter of reference should be distinguished from that of selection; while the former is concerned with our knowledge of the world, the latter is a purely syntactic matter. Moreover, the fact that verbs whose external argument is a nonvolitional causer resist nominalization cannot be used as positive evidence for language learners. Then, UG must involve some grammatical system that a priori prevents such illicit expressions from being generated. The syntactic nominalization hypothesis but not the lexicalist hypothesis is compatible with such a system. Hence, it receives a direct support from the consideration of the volitionalility requirement on the subjects of deverbal nominals.

166


3.4.2 The Double Object Construction and Lack of Ditransitive Nominate 3.4.2.1 English vs. French A similar argument may be constructed from the consideration of verbs that allow dative alternation. Both ditransitive verbs and the oblique dative alternants are causative verbs in some sense, since their lexical semantics can be expressed as cause x to have y or cause y to move to x. As observed by Oehrle (1976) and Pesetsky (1995), however, the ditransitive verbs but not their oblique dative alternants can enter into an additional construction in which the subject is a nonvolitional Causer. Thus, while (93a) can be interpreted as in (94), the same interpretation is not available in (93b): (93) a. Nixon gave Mailer a book. b. Nixon gave a book to Mailer. (94) Mailer wrote a book which he wouldn't have been able to write if it hadn't been for Nixon. As is expected, the subject of a ditransitive verb can be inanimate, and a reflexive contained in it allows backward binding, whereas its oblique dative alternant does not allow its subject to be inanimate: (95) a. The war years gave Mailer his first big success. b. *The war years gave his first big success to Mailer. (Pesetsky 1995:193) (96) Each other's remarks gave John and Mary a book. (ibid.:201) The notable difference between the ditransitive verbs and their oblique dative alternants can be straightforwardly explained in the present theory that has accommodated Fujita's three-layered VP hypothesis. The idea is that while the oblique dative alternants have the underlying structure as in (98a), where the subject originates in [Spec, v], the ditransitive verbs have the underlying structure in (98b), where the subject originates in [Spec, VI] and moves through [Spec, v] if and only if it takes a volitional reading:

A crucial difference between (98a) and (98b) is that only the latter contains the projection of V1, which is a null causative affix. This implies that V2 in (98b) always moves to V1 overtly in order to support the affixal property of the latter. That the double object construction involves an additional suffix that is absent in the corresponding oblique dative construction is shown by the fact that in some languages only the former has the same causative suffix that is used to make a causative verb from an inchoative one.13 Given condition (14), the V2+V1 complex formed in this way cannot move further to v or Nz in overt syntax. Then, we predict that obligatory overt verb


167

raising languages do not allow the double object construction for the same reasons that they do not allow the null C in a finite indicative complement clause (= (99a)), and that ditransitive verbs cannot be nominalized for the same reasons that the null C is not permitted in the complement of a derived nominal (= (99b)): (99) a. Jean croyait *(que) elle etait malade. 'Jean believes (that) she was ill.' b. his realization *(that) he was the cause of the accident These predictions are both borne out. First, French, an obligatory overt verb raising language, does not allow the double object construction:14 (100)

(101)

Jean a donne un livre a Marie. Jean has given a book to Marie 'Jean gave a book to Marie.' a.*Jean a donne Marie un livre. Jean has given Marie a book 'Jean gave Marie a book.' b.*Ils ont envoye Jean une lettre recommande. they have sent Jean a mail registered They sent Jean a registered mail.' (Kayne 1984)

Second, in English, while the oblique dative alternants can be nominalized, the ditransitive verbs cannot: (102) a. b. (103) a. b.

Sue' s gift of a book to Mary John's assignment of a hard sonata to Mary *Sue's gift of Mary (of) a book *John's assignment of Mary (of) a hard sonata (Pesetsky 1992:119)

Given condition (14) and the syntactic nominalization hypothesis, the illformedness of (101) and (103) receives a unified explanation. French has overt verb raising to v, whether the verb is finite or infinitive. Hence, the complex words [[V2+Vl]+v] and [[V2+Vl]+Nz] inevitably violate condition (14) (see (105)). On the other hand, since finite verbs do not raise up to v in English, the English counterparts of (101) do not violate condition (14) (see (104)). Since the oblique dative alternants, even if they move to v/Nz, do not incorporate the null affixal V1 in it, the same violation does not ensue in (102) (see (106)):

168


The conspiracy of the MCH and the syntactic nominalization hypothesis enables us to account for the parallelism between clauses and noun phrases as shown in (105) in a rather straightforward manner. On the other hand, the lexicalist approach to nominalization cannot provide a principled solution to the ill-formedness of (103), still less the parallelism between (101) and (103). If Pesetsky (1995) is correct in claiming that the ditransitive verb selects the null prepositional affix G in its complement,15 and if we could assume that the derived nominals based on ditransitive verbs and their complement small clauses are in an appositive relation, then we might be able to attribute the ill-formedness of (103) to the prohibition against attracting traces (48). However, putting aside the justification of Pesetsky's claim, the latter assumption is in no sense correct, since the small clause [Mary (having) a book] does not refer to a concrete object that could be denoted by the derived nominal gift; rather, gift in this use is meant to denote the action of giving. Then, only the syntactic nominalization hypothesis conjoined with condition (14) can accommodate the relevant fact. Hence, we have another piece of evidence that formation of an event/action nominal is a process of overt verb raising to a nominalizing functional category. 3.4.2.2 Japanese We have assumed that Japanese is an obligatory overt verb raising language, since it permits coordination of the verbless constituents containing a subject and an object (i.e., IP with the trace of a verb). If this assumption is correct, however, Japanese should not permit the double object construction since the successive cyclic raising of V2 to v through V1 should violate condition (14). With this in mind, consider the following alternation: (107) a. John-ga hanataba-o Mary-ni okutta. John-Norn bouquet-Acc Mary-Dat sent 'John sent a bouquet to Mary.' b. John-ga Mary-ni hanataba-o okutta. 'John sent Mary a bouquet.' This alternation was traditionally analyzed as derivation of (107b) from (107a) by scrambling of the Accusative DP to a VP-adjoined position (Saito 1985; Fukui 1993). This analysis presupposes that Japanese permits the underlying thematic structure in which the Goal argument is higher than the Theme argument. This is the same hierarchy that derives the double object construction in English. Thus, the analysis is equivalent to claiming that Japanese permits the double object construction. Miyagawa (1996, 1997) argues against the VP-scrambling analysis of (107a-b) on the ground that the Goal phrases in (107a-b) differ in their ability to license floating quantifiers (FQs). Consider (108), taken from Miyagawa (1997:9):


169

(108) a. John-ga zyosei-ni san-nin hanataba-o okutta (koto) John-Nom women-Dat three-CL bouquet-Acc presented fact 'John presented three women a bouquet.' b. ???John-ga hanataba-o zyosei-ni san-nin okutta (koto) The Goal NP in (108a) can license a numeral FQ, and the scrambling analysis assumes that (108b) is derived from (108a). The scrambling analysis has no way to account for the marginality of (108b), since there is no reason that the scrambling of the Theme NP destroys the already established relation between the Goal NP and the FQ. Pointing out this problem, Miyagawa (1996) claims that (107a-b) have distinct underlying structures neither of which is derived from the other, and the Dative ni in (107b) and (108a) is a Case-marker, whereas that in (107a) and (108b) is a postposition that heads a PP. Given this structural distinction, the ill-formedness of (108b) is assimilated with that of (109): (109)

*Karera-ga [pp kuruma-de] san-dai kita. they-Nom ear-by three-CL came 'They came by three cars.'

Miyagawa (1989) proposes that numeral FQs in Japanese must enter into mutual c-command relation with the NP which it quantifies over. If zyosei-ni in (108b) is a postpositional phrase, the failure of zyosei in the PP to be the antecedent of the numeral FQ follows from the mutual c-command requirement, since the NP contained in PP does not c-command out of the PP. Miyagawa's proposal is nondistinct from Saito's and Fukui's in assuming that Japanese tolerates the thematic hierarchy in which Goal is higher than Theme. Ogawa (1998b) argues, however, that this assumption is untenable for several reasons. First, in English, Goal NP can be the antecedent of the following reciprocal Theme NP as freely as Theme NP can be the antecedent of the following reciprocal Goal PP: (110) a. I showed the men each other, b. I showed the men to each other. In Japanese, by contrast, only the counterpart of (11Ob) seems permissible, even if judgment is quite subtle and there are idiolectal variations: (111) a. (?)John-ga Hanakoto Mary-o (paatii-de) otagai-ni John-Nom Hanako and Mary-Acc party-at each other-Dat syoukaisita. introduced 'John introduced Bill and Mary to each other. (Miyagawa 1997)


170 b.

???John-ga Hanako to Mary-ni (paatii-de) otagai-o John-Nom Hanako and Mary-Dat party-at each other- Acc syoukaisita. introduced 'John introduced Bill and Mary to each other, (the judgment is mine)

If the Goal argument in Japanese could be thematically higher than the Theme argument, the contrast between (1l1a) and ( l l l b ) would be unexpected. However, if Theme can only be higher than Goal in Japanese, the marginality of (lllb) can be reduced to the Chain Condition, which prohibits A-movement of an NP across another NP that c-commands and is coreferential with it (cf. Rizzi 1986). 16 Second, the Goal-Theme sequence in Japanese does not conform to certain restrictions to which the double object construction in English is subject. It is known that the Goal argument in the double object construction in English must be animate, while the PP in the prepositional dative construction need not: (112) a. *John sent Paris the letter. b. John sent the letter to Paris. The restriction imposed on (112a) is not observed in Japanese (113a): (113) a. John-ga Pari-ni tegami-o okutta. (=(112a)) b. John-ga tegami-o Pari-ni okutta. (= (112b)) Third, it is known that a certain adverb may intervene between the two internal arguments in the prepositional dative construction, whereas the same adverb cannot intervene between the two internal arguments in the double object construction: (114) a. *Aaron gave Joni secretly the ring. b. Aaron gave the ring secretly to Joni.

(Koizumi 1995:22)

The same restriction is not imposed on the Goal-Theme sequence in Japanese: (115) a. Taroo-ga Hanako-ni kossori yubiwa-o ageta. (= (114a)) b. Taroo-ga yubiwa-o kossori Hanako-ni ageta. (= (114b)) The well-formedness of (113a) and (115a) also suggests that the sentences with the Goal-Theme order in Japanese cannot be called the double object construction in that it does not reflect the underlying thematic hierarchy. For these reasons and others, I claim in Ogawa (1998b) that Japanese permits only the thematic hierarchy in which Theme is higher than Goal, and that the superficial Goal-Theme sequence is transformationally derived by the optional feature-driven movement of the Goal NP, which I call 'Dative Shift'. More specifically, it is claimed that the Dative Shift is a movement to a position


171

between the underlying and surface positions of the subject NP for structural Dative Case checking. This claim is independently motivated by the following contrast, among many others: (116) a. *Gakusei-ga sake-o san-nin nonda. student-Nom sake-Acc three-CL drank Three students drank sake.' (cf. Kuroda 1983) (cf. Gakusei-ga san-nin sake-o nonda.) b. Gakusei-ga Mary-ni san-nin hanataba-o okutta. student-Nom Mary-Dat three-CL bouquet-Acc sent 'Three students sent a bouquet to Mary.' c. *Gakusei-ga sono ziken-ni san-nin okotta. student-Nom that affair-Dat three-CL got angry 'Three students got angey at the affair.' (cf. Gakusei-ga san-nin sono ziken-ni okotta.) Miyagawa (1989) rules out (116a) by the mutual c-command requirement on numeral FQs, by assuming that the subject originates in [Spec, I], whereas the subject-oriented FQ to the right of the object NP is at the complement of V. However, given a version of the predicate-internal subject hypothesis, the subject NP should originate in [Spec, v], and, given the possibility of the object NP to undergo VP-scrambling, it would be possible to locate the scrambled object to the left of the underlying position of the subject. Then, if the subject in Japanese can be overtly raised to [Spec, T], we can derive (116a) unfailingly. Miyagawa himself recognizes this problem in his later papers and argues that there is no VPinternal scrambling in Japanese and that, instead, the object NP in Japanese undergoes overt object shift, the landing site of which is lower than the underlying position for the subject. See Koizumi (1993, 1995) for a similar proposal. Given their proposals, the subject-oriented FQ, which is adjoined to vP or T', is not preceded by the object NP, which does not move higher than [Spec, v]. Hence, (116a) is ill-formed. However, a nontrivial problem with this approach to (116a) is that (116b) is perfectly well-formed despite the fact that the Goal NP here also moves across the subject-oriented FQ. Now, Ogawa's (1998b) proposal solves this problem, since the relevant movement of the Goal NP is permitted in Japanese, but it is exclusively for Dative Case checking and does not apply to NPs that have a non-Dative Case. Since Dative Shift is an A-movement and since A-movement is applicable only to structurally Case-marked NPs, it does not apply to Dative NPs that are inherently Case-marked or PP. Sadakane and Koizumi (1995) divide more than fifty varieties of ni-phrases in Japanese into three classes (structurally Case-marked NPs, inherently Case-marked NPs, and PPs) and classify sono ziken-ni in (116c) into PP. Then, Dative Shift cannot apply to it. Hence, (116c) is ruled out. Readers are referred to Ogawa (1998b) for a more detailed argument and amply evidence for the proposal. See also den Dikken (1995) and Muller (1997)

172


for similar but different proposals about the Dative-Accusative alternation in Germanic languages. For our present purposes, it suffices to assume that the socalled double object construction is not permitted in Japanese and that the apparent Goal-Theme order is derived by the Dative Shift for structural Case checking. Given these assumptions, our unified explanation of (i) the generalization that obligatory overt verb raising languages, in which French is included, do not have the double object construction (see note 13) and (ii) the fact that ditransitive verbs in English cannot be nominalized is not undermined by the existence of the apparent free alternation between Goal and Theme NPs in Japanese, another obligatory overt verb raising language in our classification.17 3.4.3

Causative/Inchoative Alternation

Suppose, basically following Fujita (1993), that causative verbs that alternate with inchoative verbs differ from their inchoative counterparts only by the presence or absence of VP1 (nonvolitional Causer) between vP (volitional Causer) and VP2 (inchoative). Then, the logic of my approach to (non)volitional causation leads us to predict that either of the following two situations (or a mixture of these situations) should occur in obligatory overt verb raising languages: (i) the languages do not have any causative verb that alternates with an inchoative verb; or (ii) they always use an overt causative morpheme (which arguably heads VP1) to causativize an inchoative verb. We also predict that even in English the causative verbs that alternate with inchoative verbs cannot be nominalized. It is not easy to bear out these predictions by abstracting away from irrelevant peripheral data, since the lexical causation, as opposed to syntactic causation, is essentially a lexical process and lexical operations often involves idiosyncratic and sometimes unexpected characters (cf. Haspelmath 1989). It seems, however, that the prediction on nominalization is unexceptionally borne out (as Pesetsky 1995 suggests), and in some languages there is indeed a strong tendency for a causative verb to assume an additional overt morpheme that is absent in its inchoative counterpart, even in the same environments where it can be null in English. Consider the following contrast between English, which lacks obligatory overt verb raising, and Japanese, which Koizumi (1995) claims to have obligatory overt verb raising: (117) a. Tomatoes grow. (without V1) b. Bill grows tomatoes, (with vl) (118) a. Hune ga sizunda. (without V1) 'The ship/boat sank.' b. John-ga hune-o sizum-e-ta. (with an overt V1) John-Nom ship-Acc sink-CAUS-PAST 'John sank the ship/boat.' c. * John ga hune o sizunda. (with vl)


173

While causative verbs and their inchoative counterparts have the same morphological realization in English, they have different morphological realizations in most cases in Japanese.18 Di Sciullo (1996) observes that in French, while derived -i- verbs are always inchoative, denoting a change of state, derived -e- verbs are always causative. In other words, the causativization in French always involves an overt affix, just as in Japanese. The contrast between English on the one hand and Japanese and French on the other supports Fujita's (1994) three-layered VP hypothesis and our view about the correlation between overt verb raising and the overt realization of a causative morpheme. Similarly, the causative verbs in English that can alternate with inchoative verbs never undergo nominalization, and the inchoative verbal nouns in Japanese do not have a transitive use (cf. Haspelmath 1989): (119) a. b. c. d.

the growth of tomatoes (without V1) *Bill's growth of tomatoes (with V1) (Chomsky 1970) tomato-no seityou (= (119a)) *Bill-niyoru tomato-no seityou (=(119b))

The syntactic nominalization hypothesis enables us to provide a unified treatment of the ill-formedness of (118c), (119b), and (119d), all of which are mysterious under the lexicalist hypothesis; hence, our hypothesis is indirectly supported.19 3.4.4 Speech Act Verbs Focusing on the presence/absence of the null causative affix V1, we have discussed in section 4.2 the fact that the dative alternation is prohibited in the complement of verbs in French and derived nominals in English, exactly as we expect under the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. There is, however, another aspect in which the ditransitive verbs differ from their oblique dative alternants: the former take a small clause headed by a null preposition (which Pesetsky calls G), whereas the latter take a small clause headed by the overt preposition to. In fact, Pesetsky (1992, 1995) argues that the existence of the null prepositional head G in the double object construction is responsible for its failure in the complement of a derived nominal (cf. also den Dikken 1995). Although we suppose that his insight is not entirely on the wrong track, the availability of an alternative solution to the fact suggests that his argument is not yet conclusive. We cannot argue for the existence of the null affixal preposition without looking at a verb which always takes a volitional causer subject. Therefore, in this subsection, we examine what we call the 'speech act verbs', as exemplified by order, command, instruct, appoint, and so on. These verbs are always transitive and their external argument is always a volitional causer. Then, if any restriction is imposed on their nominalization, it has nothing to do with the null affixal V1, and we must find another source for it. With this in mind, consider first the following contrast among English, French, and Dutch:

174


(120) a. They appointed him general. b. They appointed him to a headmastership, c. On 1'a nomme *(a) un poste important. (French) They him-has nominated to a post important 'They appointed him to an important post.' (Dutch) d. Ze benoemden hem *(tot) generaal. They appointed him to general 'They appointed him general.' (den Dikken 1995:74) Suppose that these verbs always select a PP predicate that denotes the newly appointed official status of its subject. Then, the data can be interpreted as follows: exactly in the same configuration where the PP in English can be headed by a null P, the one in French and Dutch must be headed by an overt P. Although the speech act verbs are similar to the verbs that can enter into dative alternation, the two types of verbs crucially differ in one respect: while the latter can take a nonvolitional subject, the former always take a volitional subject. Then, the optionality of an overt preposition in English and its obligatoriness in the latter two languages cannot be ascribed to the presence of the null affixal VI (CAUS) between v and V2. By contrast, if we assume, following the insight of Pesetsky (1992, 1995), that the null preposition in the small clause complement of these verbs is an inflectional affix and hence must incorporate to them, we can attribute the relevant contrast to condition (14). It has been argued that Dutch, as well as French, is an obligatory overt verb raising language (Kayne 1994). Then, if a null affixal preposition heads the small clauses in these languages, it has to incorporate to the selecting verb, which overtly raises to v. Therefore, condition (14) is violated. In order to avoid the violation, the overt nonaffixal preposition must head the small clause. Its obligatoriness in French and Dutch and its optionality in English parallel the obligatoriness of an overt C in a clausal complement in the former two languages and its optionality in English.20 We can reach the same conclusion from the consideration of another environment in which a speech act verb requires an overt preposition in French but not in English. The asymmetry is concerned with the morphosyntactic form of the direct internal (Goal) argument of the verbs that take both the Goal argument and an infinitival complement: (121) a. b. c. d.

I ordered (*to) John to come immediately. The general commanded (*to) the troops to leave. II ordonna *(a) Jean de venir tout de suite. (= (121a)) II commande aux/*les enfants de se taire. 'He commanded the children to shut up.'

The overt preposition is impossible in (121a-b). We are not concerned with this fact. It may result from a prepositional counterpart of the Avoid Pronoun Principle, which we may call Avoid Preposition Principle (APP).21 However, we


175

are not concerned with this fact. Rather, we are interested in the contrast between the possibility of the null P in (121a-b) and its impossibility in (121c-d). Our theory can derive this contrast from condition (14), if we assume that the null P that heads the Goal argument is an affix, since it cannot adjoin to the verbs in French that undergo overt raising to a higher functional head position. If this reasoning is correct, and if the syntactic nominalization hypothesis is on the right track, we predict that the nominalized counterparts of (120a-b) and (121a-b) should require an overt preposition even in English, since there is overt V-to-Nz movement. The facts are well in accordance with this prediction: (122) a. the appointment of a person *(as) ambassador b. the general's command *(to) the troops to leave c. The doctor left instructions *(for) the patient to come again the next day. Note that neither the small clause [(of) a person as ambassador] nor the infinitival clause [(to) the troops to leave] is an adjunct in apposition to the derived nominals, since the derived nominals and the complement clauses cannot occur across the copula in the following examples: (123) a. *[The appointment] was [(of) a person as ambassador], b. *[The general's command] was [to the troops to leave], cf. [John's belief] is [that Mary is innocent]. Then, we cannot attribute the impossibility of the movement of the null affixal P out of the PPs in (122a-b) to condition (48), assuming that the complement clause containing the PP undergoes LF movement to [Spec, D]. On the other hand, under the syntactic nominalization hypothesis, we can attribute the obligatoriness of an overt preposition in these PPs to condition (14). The derived nominals appointment and command are formed in overt syntax by moving the verbs appoint and command to Nz headed by -ment and a null nominalizing suffix, respectively. Then, adjunction of the null affixal P to the selecting verbs followed by the movement of the P+V complex to Nz leads to a violation of condition (14). Hence, the Goal PPs in (122) cannot be headed by a null P. The syntactic nominalization hypothesis enables us to provide a unified solution to the obligatoriness of overt Ps in the complement of certain speech act verbs in French and Dutch and of the nominalized speech act verbs in English. Since neither of these facts can receive a solution in the lexicalist hypothesis, the facts in question corroborate the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. 3.4.5 A Summary In this section, assuming the existence of a certain null affixal verb that maps inchoative verbs into nonvolitional causative verbs and a certain null preposition that heads a Goal argument or a prepositional small clause, we have argued for a

176


unified solution, based on condition (14), to the following two pairs of phenomena: (124) a. Causative verbs that alternate with inchoative verbs and verbs whose subject is a nonvolitional Causer cannot be nominalized. b. Ditransitive verbs cannot be nominalized. c. The internal Goal argument of speech act verbs cannot be nominalized unless the Goal argument must be introduced by an overt preposition. (125) In French (and Dutch), but not in English, the following situations hold: a. Causative verbs that alternate with inchoative verbs require an overt causative morpheme. b. The double object construction is unavailable. c. Speech act verbs can only have the subcategorization frame [ PP TP], where P is overtly realized. These parallelisms between clause-internal and noun-phrase-internal phenomena strengthen the syntactic nominalization hypothesis for which we have given the initial argument on the basis of the impossibility of the null C in the complement of verbs in obligatory overt verb raising languages and in the complement of derived nominals in English. In the remainder of this chapter, we explore several implications of the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. The matters to be discussed include (i) how much unification is possible about the predicate-internal structures of clauses and noun phrases, (ii) to what extent derived and nonderived nominals have to be distinguished, (iii) the trigger of the LF CP-movement to [Spec, D]; and (iv) the relation between derived result nominals and derived event nominals with the same morphology. 3.5 Nz Is the Nominal Counterpart of the Light Verb We have argued so far that syntactic nominalization involves overt verb raising to the functional category Nz, which we are assuming is the nominal counterpart of the light verb v. However, we have not provided any independent evidence for this assumption. In the absence of such evidence, one could argue that Nz can take either vP or bare VP as its complement. If this were the case, NzP would be a nominal counterpart of TP or vP, and our attempt to unify verbal and nominal projections would become hard to falsify. In order to avoid this potential problem, in this section, I provide independent evidence for the assumption just stated. To demonstrate this point, we focus on (i) the two auxiliary-like verbs be and have, (ii) suru in the light verb construction in Japanese, and (iii) make and have in the modal construction in English.


177

3.5.1 Be and Have Cannot Be Nominalized In this subsection, I demonstrate the parallelism between v and Nz by dealing with the behavior and distribution of 'pseudo-lexical verbs' such as be and have. Whereas these have been explicitly or implicitly assumed to be the two instances of the lexical category V, it is claimed here that they are functional categories that head vP. Consider first the following pair of sentences: (126) a. John is certain that Bill will win the prize. b. John's certainty that Bill will win the prize (Chomsky 1970:189) Since (126a) and (126b) are logically equivalent and differ only in whether their maximal projections are verbal or nominal, it seems reasonable to assign parallel syntactic structures to them. In doing so, however, we face the problem of how to analyze the copula fee-verb that cannot be nominalized: (127)

*John's bety/beness/bement certain that Bill will win the prize

The copula be is necessary in the noun phrases headed by gerundive -ing: (128)

John's being certain that Bill will win the prize

(ibid.: 189)

Gerunds are normally divided into verbal and nominal gerunds, and the being in (128) is a verbal gerund rather than a nominal one. As expected, it is incompatible with the definite article the, which is only compatible with the nominal gerund, as shown in (129): (129) a. the fixing *(of) the sink b. *the being certain that Bill will win the prize Whatever structure is given to the verbal gerund, it should be distinguished from the one we give to a nominal structure (see section 6.5; cf. also Abney 1987). If the being in (128) is a verbal category, its well-formedness does not show that be can be nominalized. Rather, given the ill-formedness of (127), it is reasonable to assume that be cannot be nominalized and that being in (128) is an inflected form of the verb be that underlyingly fills the same syntactic position as is in (126a). The same assumption also applies to the possessive and auxiliary uses of have. While they can be followed by the suffix -ing, the gerundive form is incompatible with the definite article, a diagnostic of the nominal gerund. Furthermore, the two instances of have are both incompatible with (other) nominalizing suffixes: (130) a. John's having money b. *the having (of) money c. *John's havity/haviness/haviment/etc. of money


178

(131) a. John's having been certain that Bill will win the prize b. *the having written of the term paper (Valois 1991) c. John's havity/haviness/haviment/etc. been certain that Bill will win the prize Then, it is equally reasonable to assume that have cannot be nominalized, either, and that having in (130a) and (13la) is an inflected form of the verb have that underlyingly fills the same syntactic position as have in we have been certain that Bill will win the prize.22 The next question, then, is why be and have cannot be nominalized. If they belonged to the lexical category V, they could be nominalized since V-to-Nz movement is permitted in principle. On the other hand, a straightforward answer to this question follows from the syntactic nominalization hypothesis if we claim that every inflected or noninflected form of be and have originates in the head of vP. Note that, in our theory, syntactic nominalization is a result of the overt V-toNz movement, where Nz is the nominal counterpart of the functional category v. In other words, it never occurs that Nz selects vP as its complement. Then, if have and be are instances of v, the impossibility of their nominalization follows from the complementary distribution of v and Nz. The claim that be and have head vP rather than VP is independently motivated by the fact that neither can be passivized, under the natural assumption that only main verbs that head VP can be passivized: (132) a. *A fireman is been by John. (cf. John is a fireman.) b. *A car is had by John. (cf. John has a car.) c. *Mary was had (to) dress in Spandex by John. (cf. John had Mary dress in Spandex.) d. *The sink is had fixed by John (cf. John has fixed the sink). 3.5.2

Neither the Light Verb nor the Nominalizer Can Select PP

Now, on the basis of the claim that (some instances of) be and have belong to the functional category v, consider the following examples: (133) a. b. c. (134) a. b. c.

John is fixing the sink. (be selecting VP) John is handsome. (be selecting AP) John is a fireman. (be selecting NP) John had Mary dress in Spandex. (have selecting VP) John has fixed the sink, (have selecting AP) John has a book. (have selecting NP)

These sentences show that there are at least three instances of v that can select VP, AP, and PP. However, there seems no instance of v that can select PP. Thus, with the verb seem, which is a kind of copula verb that implies probability (see


1 79

Rothstein 1983 for the claim that seem is a light verb rather than a main verb), we have the following contrast: (135) a. This book seems of great importance. b. *This books seems about linguistics. The well-formedness of (135a) might suggest that v can select PP. However, what appears to be a PP in (135a) is scmantically identified with the AP important. Since the bona fide PP like that in (135b) cannot occur in the same position, it is safe to conclude that seem cannot select PP. Be-verbs in the locative construction in (136) might appear to instantiate the v selecting PP: (136) a. John is in the room. b. John's being in the room However, the verbs in question have the distinguishable meaning of 'exist' and can even be passivized in Japanese: (137)

Kimi-ni kono heya-ni ir-are-ru to, watasi-wa sigoto-ga you-by this room-at be-PASS-Pres Cond I-Top work-Nom can deki-nai. do-Neg 'I cannot do my work if you are in this room.'

Then, it is reasonable to assume that the be- verb that takes a PP complement is a main verb meaning 'exist' rather than the light verb that heads vP. Then, we can safely conclude that there is no instance of v that can select PP.23 This selectional restriction on v is parallel to that of Nz, since the suffixes that are used to form derived nominals can select V, A, or N but never P:

These paradigms also suggests that Nz is the nominal counperpart of v. 3.5.3 Morphological Realizations of Verbalizers and Nominalizers In what follows, I present two more instances of v from Japanese and English. Consider, first, the 'light verb construction' in Japanese as illustrated in (139). Although the 'light verb' in Japanese is not a priori identified with the functional category v, I argue that it indeed is:

180


(139) a. John-ga Mary-ni denwa-suru/sita. John-Norn Mary-Dat calling-do/did 'John calls/called Mary.' b. Hune-ga tinbotu-suru/sita. ship-Norn sinking-do/did 'A ship sinks/sank.' The so-called light verb sum is a transparent suffix that selects almost any verbal noun (VN). As it were, the structural relation between the light verb sum and its nominal complement in Japanese is exactly the mirror image of the nominalizer and its verbal complement in English. Thus, the nouns such as denwa and tinbotu are not deverbal nouns, but denwa-suru and tinbotu-suru are denominal verbs. On the other hand, while English has sufficient inventories of overt nominalizing suffixes, it has few (perhaps, no) instances of overt verbalizing suffixes. The two languages crucially differ in this respect. However, if we can show that the verbalizing suffix sum in Japanese heads vP, then it may provide indirect support for the claim that Nz is the nominal counterpart of v, since both v and Nz will then commonly have the 'category-changing' property (from N to V or vice versa), a property which is not shared by any other category. As the glosses show, the light verb sum can attach to both unergative-based and unaccusative-based VNs. Furthermore, it is an X°-level suffix rather than a phrasal suffix, and verbalizes the head to which it attaches. Therefore, no Genitive arguments or adjectival modifiers can occur in the noun phrase at the complement of the light verb sum, even if the VNs can license them elsewhere: (140) a. *John-ga [Mary-e-no denwa]-suru/sita. John-Nom Mary-Dat-Gen calling-do/did b. [John-no Mary-e-no denwa]-ga... John-Gen Mary-Dat-Gen calling-Norn... (141) a. *John-ga nagasidai-o [subayai syuuri]-sita. John-Norn sink-Ace rapid fixing-did 'John did rapid fixing of the sink.' b. [John-niyoru nagasidai-no subayai syuuri]-wa ... John-by sink-Gen rapid fixing-Top... This behavior of the light verb sum contrasts with that of the main verb sum in all repsects. The latter is not an affix; it cannot select unaccusative verbs; and it does not verbalize the verbal noun in its complement: (142) a. John-ga Mary-ni denwa-o suru/sita. John-Nom Mary-Dat calling-Ace do/did 'John calls/called Mary.' b. *Hune-ga tinbotu-o suru/sita. ship-Nom sinking-Ace do/did 'A ship sinks/sank.'


181

(143) John-ga [Mary-e-no denwa]-o suru/sita. John-Norn Mary-Dat-Gen calling]-Acc do/did (144) John-ga [subayai idou]-o sita. John-Norn rapid move-Acc did 'John rapidly moved.' The properties of the light verb sum in Japanese are quite analogous to those of the auxiliary verb do. First, the auxiliary verb do can select both unergative and unaccusative verbs: (145) a. John did not call up Mary, b. The ship didn't sink. Second, although the auxiliary do is not a suffix in itself, it functions as a supporter of the suffixal tense morpheme that cannot be supported by a finite verb (cf. Bobaljik 1994): (146) a. John *(did) not fix the sink. b. Although Mary did not eat sashimi, Susan did. Third, no Genitive arguments or adjectival modifiers can occur in its complement, which suggests that the auxiliary do selects a verbal category, as in (140a) and (141a): (147) a. *John didn't calling up of Mary, b. *John didn't rapid fixing the sink. On the other hand, the main verb sum is no doubt the counterpart of the main verb do, since the latter also does not select unaccusative-based noun phrases (= (148)); it has nothing to do with suffixation; and it does not verbalize the head of its complement (= (149)): (148) a. b. (149) a. b.

John did the fixing of the sink, *The ship did sinking. John did his brother's homework. John did the rapid fixing of the sink.

Given the parallelism between the light verb suru and the auxiliary do on the one hand and the parallelism between the main verb suru and the main verb do on the other, it is reasonable to assume that the light verb suru is a functional category rather than V. More specifically, let us propose that it heads vP. Then, the properties of the light verb suru suggest that v can also be a (category-changing) verbalizer and in this respect parallel to Nz. We have so far looked at only three instances of v that can select a nominal

182


category: be, have, and sum. I now propose that the verbs that occur in the modal construction in English, such as have, make, and take are also instances of the light verb v that selects a nominal category: (150) a. b. c. d. e.

John is making the claim [you won't need it]. I have hopes [the company will squander the money]. I have a feeling [the company will squander the money]. There is no doubt [(that) we were wrong from the start]. John took a walk / a look / a bath / his departure / etc.

Make in (150a) is not a main verb, since it does not have the meaning of creating something, which is the core meaning of the main verb make; it simply means something like 'doing', and the central meaning of the predicate comes from the (derived) nominal in its complement. Thus, make the claim is equivalent to the verb claim. The same is true of take in (150e). This makes it plausible to claim that make and take in (150) are instances of the light verb v. As for have and be in other examples, we have already shown that they are instances of v. Therefore, let us propose that all the verbal categories that occur in the modal construction are overt realizations of the light verb v and that the v here selects a nominal predicate ([+N, -V]) in its complement and verbalizes it. Thus, the verbs occurring in the modal construction are identical to the light verb suru in Japanese, except that they are not suffixes. Let us propose, more specifically, that the constituents the claim, a feeling, and so on are bare NP rather than DP and that the determiners the and a in (150) occupy [Spec, N], rather than they are heading a functional category. Given this proposal, the four characteristics of the modal construction as pointed out by Ross (1986) are straightforwardly explained. First, the N that occurs in this construction, unlike the N that selects an appositive clausal complement, can license the null C in its complement: (151) a. I have hopes (that) the company will squander the money. b. I am making the claim ?(that) the company squandered the money. The reason for this is that the head N in English does not raise to v until LF, for the same reasons that V does not, and because the complement clause in this construction is not in apposition to the head N; because of these, the null C can satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the N without violating conditions (14) or (48). Second, extraction out of the N-complement in the modal construction does not violate the Complex NP Constraint: (152) a. The money which I have hopes that the company will squander amounts to $400,000. b. ?The money which 1 am making the claim that the company squandered the money amounts to $400,000.


183

In our theory, the head N in this construction raises to v at LF, forming a complex verb.24 Then, the well-formedness of the sentences just presented reduces to the fact that (152a-b) have much the same LF representations as (153a-b) in LF: (153) a. The money which I hope that the company will squander amounts to $400,000. b. The money which I am claiming that the company squandered the money amounts to $400,000. Third, the NP in the modal construction cannot be modified by a possessive Genitive phrase, as in (154b): (154) a. We are discussing {Myron's/their} claim that flying saucers are real. b. Myron is making {the/?his/*Suzie's/*Dr. No's} claim that dead is better than red. The marginality of Genitive possessors in (154b) can be attributed to the same reasons as the fact that the verbal nouns in the light verb construction in Japanese can not license a Genitive argument in their projection: (155)

*John-ga [Mary-e-no denwa]-suru/sita. John-Norn Mary-Dat-Gen calling-do/did 'John called Mary up.'

(= (140a))

More specifically, it could be argued that (154b) and (155) are equally ruled out because of the failure of Case-licensing, because a Genitive Case feature must be licensed in the checking domain of either D or Nz, but the complement of the light verb is NP rather than DP or NzP.25 Fourth, at a superficial level, the following fact shows that the NPcomplement in this construction can be passivized only if the overt C is realized: (156)

The claim [*(that) you won't need it] is being made by Jack. (=(8))

Given our proposal that verbs like make that occur in the modal construction are assimilated with the auxiliary do, however, we cannot analyze (156) as an instance of the passivization of the modal construction, since auxiliaries cannot be passivized: (157) a. John didn't love Mary. b. *Mary was not done love by John. If (156) were an instance of the modal construction, the passivization would be ruled out for the same reasons as (157b), whether or not that is overtly realized.

184


The passivization in (156) can be legitimized only if we reanalyze make in (156) as a main verb, the claim as its direct object, and the as the head of DP. After this reanalysis, however, incorporation of the null C to claim is blocked for the now familiar reasons, whether the tensed clausal complement is in apposition to the noun claim or is the internal argument of the verb claim which is nominalized by the functional head Nz. All the four characteristics of the modal construction in English have received a natural account under the single assumption that it involves a structure in which the overtly realized v (make, have, be, take) takes a bare NP complement. With the assumption presupposed, consider finally the following sentence in Japanese: (158)

John-ga [Bill-ga yuuzai dearu *(to)] (oomajimeni) syutyou-sita. John-Norn Bill-Norn guilty is Comp seriously claim-did 'John made the claim that Bill was guilty.'

If our arguments so far are valid, this sentence must be a Japanese counterpart of the modal construction in English, since the light verb sum selects a VN as its complement. Nevertheless, the null C is impossible in the complement of the VN in (158), unlike in (151). This fact does not undermine our theory, however, since we are assuming that Japanese is a language in which V overtly raises up to Pol for independent reasons. If so, it follows from the Head Movement Constraint that the VN in (158) incorporates to the light verb and forms a complex verb in the overt syntax, as in French. The inseparability of the light verb and the VN in (158) may support this view. This sharply contrasts with the separability of the main verb and its accusative object in (159), where the light verb sum is replaced by the main verb suru'. (159)

John-ga [Bill-ga yuuzai dearu *(toiu)] syutyou-o (oomajimeni) sita. John-Nom Bill-Norn guilty is Comp claim-Ace seriously did '(Lit.) John did seriously the claim that Bill was guilty.'

Given the obligatoriness of overt head-movement to v, the null C is impossible in (158) because adjunction of the null C to the VN results in a violation of condition (14). On the other hand, given the fact that the tensed clausal complement in (159) is scmantically in apposition to the noun syutyou, the impossibility of the null C here is attributed to condition (48), under the assumption that the CP in apposition to N must move to [Spec, D] in LF. Note, incidentally, that the form of the overt complementizer differs between (158) and (159): to in (158) and toiu in (159). As I show later, toiu in Japanese behaves on a par with that in English, and toiu is of a verbal category. This fact provides an indirect support for the proposal that the CP in apposition to the N moves in LF for V-feature checking (see section 6.4.3 for a more detailed argument about the two types of complementizer in Japanese).


185

3.6 Verbs, Derived Nominals, and Nonderived Nominals Given the lexicalist hypothesis proposed by Chomsky (1970) and the DP hypothesis proposed by Abney (1987), noun phrases headed by a derived nominal and those headed by a nonderived nominal have the same internal and external structures as schematized below: (160) a. John's picture of Bill

(161) a. John's examination of the patient

Example (161b) is syntactically identical to (160b). The thematic relations expressed by these structures are also identical: the DP in [Spec, D] counts as the instigator of the act of taking picture and examining someone, while the DP at the complement of N counts as the patient of the act of taking picture and doing examination, respectively. Furthermore, (161b) is parallel to the structure of a corresponding sentence in (162a), which is schematized in (162b): (162) a. John examined the patient.

Since the lexicalist hypothesis captures any common ground between the noun phrase in (16la) and the clause in (162a) by simply assuming the parallelism between V and N and the one between I and D, it leaves the possibility of reducing whatever differences between verbs and corresponding derived nominals to the categorial distinction between V and N. Thus, the fact that of the patient in (16la) can be omitted, whereas the patient in (162a) cannot, can be derived from some yet uncovered difference between V and N since of Bill in (160a) can also be omitted. A similar reduction is also applicable to a contrast illustrated by the following examples:

186


(163) a. John is claiming that Bill is guilty. b. John's claim that Bill is guilty c. the fact that Bill is guilty The sentential complement in (163a) is taken as the internal argument of the verb claim, which is interpreted as the prepositional content expressed by John's act of claiming, whereas the sentential complement in (163b) can be taken only as the appositive modifier of the noun phrase the claim, which refers to the proposition which John claimed. This relation between the derived nominal claim and its sentential complement is identical to the one between the nonderived nominal fact and its sentential complement in (163c). This state of affairs is not unexpected under the lexicalist hypothesis, since the derived nominal claim and the nonderived nominal fact both belong to the category N, in contrast to the verb claim, The syntactic nominalization hypothesis makes a different prediction. It claims that (certain subclasses of) derived nominals are formed in syntax by overt verb raising to Nz, as in (164): (164) a. John's examination of the patient

Then, since the DP of the patient in (I64a) is the internal argument of the V examine, as in (162a), there appears to be no way to explain why the internal argument cannot be omitted in (162) but can in (164a). Similarly, since the sentential complements in (163a-b) are both the internal argument of the verb claim, as it stands, we cannot expect that the clausal complement in (163b) must be interpreted as an appositive modifier. These two asymmetries between the verbs on the one hand and the derived and nonderived nominals on the other are potentially problematic to the syntactic nominalization hypothesis in double senses. First, if a derived nominal incorporates the thematic structure of a verb in it, it should behave on a par with a verb. Second, if a derived nominal is headed by the functional category Nz, it should differ in a variety of ways from a nonderived nominal, which is headed by the lexical category N. Judging from the data in (161) through (164), neither prediction is borne out. We argue, however, that these potential problems turn out


187

not so serious as they appear to be, if we adopt Grimshaw's (1990) classification of derived nominals into complex event nominals, simple event nominals, and result nominals. Putting aside the second problem until section 6.4, let us consider the first problem, that is, why the internal arguments of both derived and nonderived nominals can be omitted, whereas those of verbs cannot. 3.6.1

Diagnostics for Distinguishing Three Types of Derived Nominals

The relevant contrast is illustrated as below: (165) a. John's examination (of the patient) b. John's picture (of Bill) c. John examined *(the patient). Deverbal nominals have occasionally been divided into two or more subclasses in terms of their semantic differences. Thus, Lees (1960) proposes a distinction between action nominals and gerunds, Bland (1985) does it between action nominals, gerunds, and derived nominals, and Abney (1987) does it between gerunds with 'Act' reading and those with 'Fact' reading. However, these distinctions are concerned mainly with subclassification of gerunds or the opposition between gerunds and deverbal nongerundial nominals. On the other hand, Grimshaw (1990) claims that a more fine-grained characterization is necessary among deverbal non-gerundial nominals in terms of the complexity of their internal event structure. More specifically, Grimshaw (1990) proposes the three-way distinction among complex event nominal (CEN), simple event nominal (SEN), and result nominal (RN). Among various differences between CENs and SENs, the most notable one is that realization of their arguments is obligatory in the former but optional in the latter (cf. also Safir 1987): (166) a. Caesar's destruction *(of his fleet) was thorough. b. Caesar's destruction (of his fleet) was unexpected.

(CEN) (SEN)

As Grimshaw (1990:59) notes, SENs are just like RNs in most respects. Nonetheless, they have to be distinguished syntactically. First, result nominals do not have argument structure at all: (167) a. That was the/an assignment (*of the problem). (Grimshaw 1990:55) b. The examination (*of the patients) was on the table. (ibid.:49) Second, RN, but not CEN or SEN, can be pluralized: (168) a. The assignments were long. b The.a s s i g n m e n t s of the problems took a long time.


188

Third, aspectual modifiers can co-occur with CEN, but not with SEN or RN: (169) a. The frequent expression *(of one's feeling) is desirable. (Grimshaw 1990:50) b. *The frequent trip/event was a nuisance. (ibid.:59) Fourth, the so-called passive nominals cannot be CEN: (170) *The patient's frequent examination got on his nerves. (Grimshaw 1990:83) Fifth, temporal modifiers can modify only a SEN. That they cannot modify a RN is reasonable since there is no doubt that simple nominals such as book or car does not have an event argument that can be modified by them (cf. Kratzer 1989, 1996).26The following contrasts show that temporal modifiers cannot modify a CEN, either: (171) a. b. (172) a. b.

His criticizing the book before he read it (*)His criticism of the book before he read it (Chomsky 1970:193) Yesterday's liberal/European defeat *Yesterday's defeat of the Europeans (Grimshaw 1990:84, 87)

The Poss-mg gerunds and the derived nominals with an adjectival thematic object are SENs rather than CENs, as shown by the following contrasts (see later in this chapter my claim that by-phrases can modify only CENs and RNs but not SENs): (173) a. John's fixing the sink was surprising/*skillful. (Abney 1987:245) b. *The liberal defeat by Reagan (Grimshaw 1990:87) We have seen five diagnostics for distinguishing CEN, SEN, and RN from one another: (174) a. While CEN requires all of its arguments to be realized, SEN may realize its arguments only optionally, and RN does not have its argument structure. b. While RN can be pluralized, neither CEN nor SEN can be pluralized (nor can it be preceded by an indefinite article). c. Only SEN can be modified by certain temporal modifiers. d. Only CEN can be modified by an aspectual modifier. e. Passive nominals cannot be CEN.

(175) a. b. c. d. e.

argument realization temporal modifiers pluralization/a aspectual modifiers passive nominals

CEN obligatory impossible impossible possible impossible

SEN optional possible impossible impossible possible

RN impossible impossible possible impossible possible


189

Given this three-way distinction among derived nominals, the first question we have posed for the syntactic nominalization hypothesis can be partially resolved. The question is concerned with the apparent optionality of internal argument realization that is typical of derived and nonderived nominals that is not shared by a verb. As (175a) shows, given the necessary distinction between CEN on the one hand and SEN and RN on the other, the CENs behave on a par with verbs in terms of their argument realization: all of their thematic arguments must be syntactically realized. This state of affairs is exactly predicted by the syntactic nominalization hypothesis, since it presupposes that derived nominals shares every syntactic and lexico-semantic property with their corresponding verbs, including their argument structure.27 The fact that RNs cannot take an internal argument is not surprising, either, since we are assuming that they are listed in the lexicon as instances of the lexical category N. Since they have the same morphological realization as the corresponding event nominals, which are formed in the syntax, each RN must have been formed by syntactic affixation of a nominalizing suffix to a verb stem. However, we propose in section 6.3 that when a derived nominal is used as an RN, the NzP that involves V-to-Nz incorporation in it has been reanalyzed as N. We show there that such a reanalysis, involving both category changing and barlevel reduction, is a very productive process that take place in the feedback from the syntax to the lexicon. Since the thematic structure of a verb is no longer visible in the N created as such, it is naturally expected that these RNs cannot take an internal argument that the corresponding verbs or CENs can take. It is generally the case that simple nonderived nominals do not take an internal argument.28 However, certain subclasses of simple nonderived nominals have to be distinguished from others in that they can take an internal argument.29 Picture in (165b) instantiates one such case. Other instances of the same class are exemplified in (176): (176) a. b. c. d. e.

the part/role of Hamlet the top of Mt. Fuji the brother of Mary the eye of an artist the tail of a pig

These nouns seem to be unexceptionally classified into either inalienable possession nominals or relational nouns, both being synsemantic categories. In other words, they make sense only in relation to other NPs with an appropriate meaning. Picture, when it takes an internal argument, is also an inalienable possession nominal in that the of-phrase at the complement of picture refers to what is printed on the surface of a picture, which cannot be separated from the picture. Then, whatever explanation is given to this property of these nouns, the fact that they can take an internal argument is reducible to the unique property of their lexical semantics. Hence, we may put these cases aside for the sake of our

190


discussion and assume that no instance of the category N that refers to an autosemanic (as opposed to 'synsemantic') object can take an internal argument. Then, the fact that no RN can take an internal argument follows from this assumption. Hence, this fact does not undermine the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. On the other hand, the fact that SENs can take an internal argument optionally is really problematic to the hypothesis, since we assume that they have the same morphosyntactic derivations as CENs, and the latter require all their arguments to be realized in a certain local domain. The next subsection is devoted to the demonstration that this peculiar property of SENs does not conflict with a unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. 3.6.2

Parallelisms between Simple Event Nominals and Middle Verbs

Simple event nominals (SENs) cannot be analyzed on a par with RN, since they cannot be pluralized. However, they cannot be assimilated with CENs, either, since some of their thematic arguments need not appear obligatorily, and since they cannot be modified by aspectual modifiers. If we assume that their formation involves incorporation of V to Nz, the simplest picture is that both the argument structure and event structure of V are kept. Therefore, every proponent of the syntactic nominalization hypothesis must account for why the behavior of SENs diverges from the simplest picture. In addition, now that we are arguing for the parallelism between verbal and nominal projections, we predict that there are two different classes of verbs that have the same relation as that between CENs and SENs. In this subsection, keeping these issues in mind, we propose that the middle verbs are the verbal counterpart of SENs, in that their event structure is 'simpler' than that of their transitive counterparts, just as the event structure of SENs is 'simpler' than that of CENs. We do not go into the exact mechanism by which CENs and transitive (accomplishment) verbs are altered into SENs and middle verbs, respectively, because it is irrelevant to our main concern here. With the qualification, let us demonstrate four pieces of parallelism between SENs and middle verbs in the following subsections. 3.6.2.1 The Impossibility of Agent-oriented

Modifiers

The first observation is concerned with the possibility of Agent-oriented modifiers. As originally pointed out by Chomsky (1970), by-phrases that modify a derived nominal can refer only to the Agent of the action/process denoted by the derived nominal. Thus, the nominalization of a stative or nonagentive verb cannot be followed by a by-phrase: (177) a. *the marriage to Mary by John b. *the resemblance to Bill by John (Chomsky 1970:204)


191

c. * Army's fright by the scarecrow (nonvolitional Causer) (Rozwadowska 1988: 156) d. *the receipt of the package by John (Goal) e. *the fear of Harry by John (Experiencer) These examples have so far been ruled out on the ground that the by in a noun phrase is an inherent Case-marker that is associated with Agent. If by-phrase in a noun phrase is incompatible with nonagentive deverbal nominals, we can use it as a method of distinguishing derived nominals that have an Agent argument from those without it. With this in mind, consider that CEN can be modified by a by-phrase, but SEN cannot: (178) a. the frequent examination of the patient by the doctor (Valois 1991:82) b. *the destruction by the enemy (Zucchi 1989:472) c. *The liberal defeat by Reagan (Grimshaw 1990:87) (cf. yesterday's liberal/European defeat) d. ??the book's publication by The MIT Press (ibid.:88) As shown by the presence of the aspectual modifier frequent, the N head in (178a) is a CEN, and it can be modified by a by-phrase. On the other hand, as shown by the absence of the postnominal internal arguments, the Ns in (178b-d) are not CEN but SEN, and they cannot be modified by a fey-phrase. This contrast shows that SEN, which optionally takes an internal argument, cannot license an Agent argument even implicitly.30 Now, returning to middle verbs, we find that they cannot be modified by a fey-phrase, either: (179)

*Bureaucrats bribe easily by managers. (Nakamura 1995:58)

The parallelism between SENs and middle verbs in terms of agentivity can also be shown by another set of Agent-oriented modifiers, which are instantiated by adjectives or adverbs of intentionality such as deliberate(ly) or intentional(ly). They can modify neither SEN nor middle verb, as shown in (181): (180) a. *The instructor's intentional examination took a long time b. *The instructor's deliberate examination took a long time. (Grimshaw 1990:51) (181) a. *The book sold deliberately. b. * Your books read intentionally. (Roberts 1986) The unacceptability of (179) is not a matter of pragmatic anomaly since the action of bribing requires its instigator, as shown the possibility of paraphrasing (179) as in (182):


192 (182)

It is easy (for managers) to bribe bureaucrats.

Then, the ill-formedness of (179) can be ascribed only to the failure of the syntactic licensing of the by-phrase. In the same way, the ill-formedness of (178bd) should be attributed to the failure of the syntactic licensing of the by-phrase. 16.2.2 Stativity Second, as discussed by many authors (Bland 1985; Safir 1987; Grimshaw 1990; among others), the N head that can license a rationale clause is limited to a CEN; neither a SEN nor a RN can do it: (183) a. b. c. d.

the PRO destruction of the city [PRO to prove a point] *the city's destruction [PRO to prove a point] *the destruction [PRO to prove a point] *the translations of the book [PRO to make it available to a wide readership]

(CEN) (SEN) (SEN) (RN)

Grimshaw (1990) accounts for this asymmetry by the following proposals and assumptions: (a) Ev is the external argument of CEN, whereas a nonthematic argument R is the external argument of SEN and RN; (b) 'event control' (Lasnik 1988 and Williams 1985) is possible with predicates with Ev (or E, a variant of Ev) as their external argument; and (c) the event structure itself provides the controller for PRO. Whether or not we adopt the technical details of Grimshaw's proposals, it seems essentially correct to assume that SENs lack the internal event structure that CENs have and are therefore similar to stative predicates in relevant syntactic respects. It is well known that stative predicates cannot license a rationale clause: (184)

*John knows the answer [PRO to impress everyone].

Stative predicates behave differently from eventive predicates in many other respects. Thus, they do not have the imperative form; they cannot be replaced by the preform do or do so; and they cannot occur in the complement of an instruction verb: (185) a. b. c. d.

* Know the answer. *What John did was understand it. ?*Tom knows Mary and John does so, too. *John forced Mary to know the answer.

As Nakamura (1995) points out, the middle verbs behave on a par with the stative predicates in every respect:

Derived Nominals and Their Satellites (186) a. b. c. d. e.

193

*Bureaucrats bribe easily [PRO to keep them happy. *Bribe easily. *What the first chapter did was read clearly. ?*Mary amuses easily and John does so, too. *John forced the politician to bribe easily.

The fact that both SENs and middle verbs pattern with stative predicates with respect to the control into rationale clause illustrates the second piece of their parallelism. 3.6.2.3. Argument Realization We have pointed out that SENs do not require their internal arguments to be realized overtly: (187) a. Caesar's destruction (of his fleet) was unexpected. (= (166b)) b. the patient's examination Superficially, (187a) shows that the internal argument of a SEN can (not 'must') be omitted, and (187b) shows that the external argument of a SEN can (not 'must') be omitted. However, the fact that SENs do not permit Agent-oriented modifiers leads us to assume that SENs do not it take the external argument (i.e., Agent) and that Caesar's in (187a) is not the bona fide external argument of destruction (or of Nz that selects destroy in our theory). Actually, Grimshaw (1990) claims that it is not the external argument of destruction but its a(rgument)-adjunct. If this is the case, one property of SENs can be described as in (188): (188)

SENs do not permit their external arguments to be realized syntactically.

As for the internal argument in (187a), we could continue to assume that it is realized only optionally. However, an alternative way is to assume that it is realized obligatorily, though it may or may not have a phonetic form, that is, it may be PRO. Even if PRO occurs at the complement of a SEN, it moves to [Spec, D] overtly, just as the PRO in an infinitive clause is licensed in [Spec, T], even if it occurs at the complement of V, as in (189): (189)

John wants [PRO; to be loved ti, by his parents].

Under these assumptions, the structure of (190a) is schematized as in (190b), where the overt subject Caesar's is not moved to [Spec, D] but base-generated in a DP-adjoined position (since a DP-adjoined position is in the outer checking domain of D, an element base-generated in the position can enter into a checking relation with D; see chapter 1):

194


(190) a. Caesar's destruction was unexpected.

Generalizing (190b), let us modify the argument realization properties of SENs in (188), as in (191): (191)

SENs require their internal argument(s) to be realized obligatorily, but do not permit their external arguments to be realized syntactically.

This property of SENs is quite similar to that of middle verbs. The absence of the external argument is typical of the middle construction. Thus, a sentence like (192) cannot be assimilated with the middle construction: (192)

John reads this book easily.

In the middle construction, some processes, whether lexical or syntactic, apply to both the external and internal arguments. On the one hand, Roberts (1986) and Fagan (1988, 1992) argue that middle formation involves suppression of the external argument of a transitive verb and the externalization of the internal argument of the underlying transitive verb. On the other hand, Keyser and Roeper (1984) propose that middle formation involves suppression of the external argument of a transitive verb and the absorption of the Accusative Case assigned to the internal argument (see also Stroik 1992, 1995).31 Although the two approaches to middles differ in what operation applies to the internal argument of the underlying transitive verb, they share the claim that the external argument of the underlying transitive verb is suppressed in its middle counterpart. Suppose that Keyser and Roeper (1984) and Stroik (1992, 1995) are correct in that middle formation involves syntactic movement of the internal argument to [Spec, T]. Then, we can assimilate what happens in a noun phrase headed by a SEN and what happens in the middle construction. The only differences between them are that the internal argument of a SEN can be PRO, whereas that of a middle verb must be an overtly realized NP and that the internal argument of a SEN, when overt, may remain in situ, whereas that of a middle verb must move to


195

[Spec, T] overtly. Both of these differences can be derived from the requirement that the Spec of a finite T must be filled by an overt DP and the independently necessary assumption that [Spec, D] is free from this requirement. So far, we have argued that SENs and middle verbs have the same characteristics with respect to argument realization. Compare (191) with (193): (193)

Middle verbs require their internal argument to be realized obligatorily, but do not permit their external arguments to be realized syntactically.

The statement in (193) entails that what appears as the subject of a middle verb is not its external argument (i.e., Agent). A support for this conclusion comes from the fact that the agent of the action denoted by the transitive counterpart of a middle verb is always implied in the middle construction. Thus, (194a) implies that it is easy for someone to hang clothes. In contrast, there is absolutely no implied agent in the ergative construction, as in (194b): (194) a. b.

The clothes hang easily. The clothes are hanging on the line. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:383)

Fellbaum (1989) also claims that the Agent argument is simply 'concealed' in the middle construction, rather than totally eliminated and replaced by the externalized Theme. More specifically, Roberts (1986) claims that middle sentences express generic quantification over the implicit subject. Thus, (195a) can be paraphrased as in (195b): (195) a. b.

This car handles smoothly. People, in general, can handle this car smoothly.

Fujita and Matsumoto (1995) claim that middle verbs are on a par with individual-level stative predicates both syntactically and semantically. Diesing (1992) proposes that the subject of an individual-level predicate occurs outside VP and control PRO in the typical predicate-internal subject position, as in (196): (196) [IP firemen Infl [vp PRO are altruistic ]] In (196), the overt subject is not an argument of the lexical predicate but is 6marked by Infl. By a tree-splitting algorithm, the S-structure in (196) is mapped into the following LF representation: (197) [1P Genx [IP firemen, Infl [VP PROx are altruistic ]]]] Modifying Diesing's structure under a version of the split Infl hypothesis, Fujita and Matsumoto give the following syntactic structure to (195a):


196 (198)

[AgrSP this car AgrS [TP Genx [TP T [VP proK handles smoothly]]

Here, pro refers to the implicit Agent, which is generically quantified over, since it is locally bound by the generic operator (Gen) adjoined to TP. Since the overt DP is outside the scope of the Gen, it must refer to a concrete object rather than a kind, and the whole sentence receives a D(efinite)-generic interpretation. The structure in (198) shows that the external argument of the corresponding transitive verb in not suppressed in the middle construction. However, (198) is compatible with the fact that middle verbs cannot be modified by Agent-oriented adverbs nor can they license a rationale clause, since these properties of middle verbs follow from the fact that they are stative verbs: (199) a. *John knows the answer intentionally. b. * John knows the answer [PRO to impress everyone]. (=(184)) It remains to be solved why middle verbs, unlike their transitive counterparts, must have the properties of stative verbs. In the next subsection, I give a partial answer to this question. 3.6.2.4 Zero Derivation and Event Suppression SENs always have their CEN counterparts which are identical in their morphological realizations. Thus, the SEN destruction is morphologically identical to the CEN destruction, though their argument structures are different. This fact is parallel to the fact that middle verbs always have their transitive counterparts which are identical in their morphological realizations but differ in their event structures. This is a nontrivial issue in understanding the nature of SENs and middle verbs as opposed to CENs and transitive verbs, and taking this common ground as a coincidence may miss an important generalization. Note, first, that passive verbs crucially differ from middle verbs in that they normally assume an additional overt morphology -en and that they are nondistinct from the corresponding active verbs in the possibility of event control into a rationale clause: (200) a. They sank the boat [PRO to collect the insurance]. b. The boat was sunk [PRO to collect the insurance]. (Lasnik 1988) Second, consider the following contrasts, pointed out by Roeper (1993): (201) a. b. (202) a. b.

the starting of the game [PRO to begin the season] *the start of the game [PRO to begin the season] the closing of the stock market [PRO to show power] *the close of the stock market [PRO to show power]


197

Starting and closing on the one hand and start and close on the other are both nominalizations based on the verbs start and close, respectively, and differ from each other only in that the former assume an overt nominalizing suffix, whereas the latter undergo zero derivation. However, this difference affects their ability to license a rationale clause. Now, let us propose that the following generalization holds with respect to 'zero derivation': (203)

Zero derivation suppresses the event argument of the predicates to which it has applied.

The suppression of the event argument inevitably results in the reanalysis of an eventive predicate as a stative predicate. Since stative predicates cannot license a rationale clause, (201b) and (202b) are ruled out. Now, let us propose that middle verb are derived from transitive verbs by zero derivation. Then, it naturally follows from (203) that middle verbs behave on a par with stative predicates and do not license a rationale clause. Given (203), the peculiar properties of SENs may also be explained in the same way, by proposing that SENs are derived from CENs by zero derivation. Let me emphasize here that this proposal is compatible with the syntactic nominalization hypothesis. It is possible to assume that the formation of both SENs and CENs involves incorporation of V to Nz, though the incorporated V in the former has undergone zero derivation in the lexicon. If we assume that zero derivation in the lexicon does not involve affixation of the null morpheme to a verb, the overt movement of a zero-derived verb to Nz does not induce a violation of condition (14). Alternatively, it could be conceived that the categories that are zero-derived in the lexicon are not the V itself but the Nz that selects the V. The latter approach could be trivially extended to middle verbs by proposing that the v that selects a middle verb has undergone zero derivation.33 Whichever approach we choose, the peculiar properties of SENs are no longer problematic to a unified theory of verbal and nominal projections, since the noun phrases headed by SENs and sentences headed by middle verbs can be analyzed to have parallel internal structures.34 3.6.3 The Derivation of Result Nominals We have argued for a syntactic derivation of complex event nominals (CENs) and simple event nominals (SENs), though we have simply assumed that result nominals (RNs) belong to the lexical category N. If we argue on the basis of the morphological identity of CENs and SENs that SENs are also formed in the syntax, then we might be forced to argue that RNs are also formed in the syntax, since RNs basically have the same morphological realizations as the corresponding CENs or SENs. However, RNs differ from CENs and SENs in one crucial respect: they can be pluralized. Thus, the derived nominal examination is syntactically ambiguous among CEN, SEN, and RN, though only its use as an


198

RN, which refers to an examination paper, can be pluralized. Then, if we assume that plural noun examinations is morphologically distinct from the numberunspecified noun examination, we can argue that RNs are formed in the lexicon and listed there under the category N. The approach to distinguish the derivation of CEN and RN has occasionally been taken by some linguists (Valois 1991, Hazout 1995). For those linguists who take the compromise position, the SENs have been analyzed on a par with RNs (Grimshaw 1990) or are not distinguished from CENs in the first place (Valois 1991). We have departed from any previous approach by providing a unique analysis for SENs. We follow Grimshaw (1990) and Valois (1991), however, in taking a lexicalist approach to RNs. More specifically, we assume that the noun phrase in (204a) has the (partial) structure in (204b), rather than (204c): (204) a.

John's expression

Let us refer to any approach that analyzes CENs compositionally and RNs lexically as a 'compromise approach'. Our version of the compromise approach, which assumes that RNs are headed by the lexical category N, straightforwardly explains why RNs do not take an internal argument. It can be reduced to the same reasons that simple nonderived nominals do not. The fact that RNs can be pluralized, unlike CENs and SENs, also follows from the categorial distinction drawn between RNs on the one hand and CENs and SENs on the other: the former are headed by N, whereas the latter are (multi-)headed by the complex category V+Nz.35 It is not the case, however, that the compromise approach to nominalization does not raise any problem. Above all, it induces one question that does not arise under a uniformly lexicalist approach like Chomsky's (1970, 1986a): why do RNs have the same morphological forms as the corresponding CENs and RNs, except for the possibility of pluralization? In what follows, we provide possible answers available at present. The first, and most straightforward, answer is to assume that the same operation that attaches a nominal morpheme to a verb stem in the syntax, whether it is head-movement or not, is also applicable in the lexicon. One proponent who argues for this derivation is Kageyama (1993). He considers that whatever operation applies in syntax also applies in the lexicon and that RNs are formed in the lexicon in the same way as CENs and SENs are formed in the syntax (call this the 'elsewhere generation approach'). This approach presupposes the existence of a syntactic structure in the lexicon. Suppose that Hale and Keyser (1993) are correct in claiming that the lexicon contains the lexical conceptual structure which is somehow mapped into the post-lexical syntactic structure. Then, such an approach may not be immediately rejectable (see Booij 1992 for the necessity of the LCS as a level at which certain cases of nominalization apply). However, the postulation of a level of syntactic structure in the lexicon as distinguished from


199

the purely syntactic structure is in disagreement with the spirit of the minimalist program of linguistic theory for two reasons. First, now that D-structure has been eliminated, there is no way to distinguish post-lexical and pre-lexical components. Rather, the computation should proceed uniformly from the lexicon to LF. Then, there is no room to distinguish between whatever operations take place in the lexicon and in syntax. Second, the minimalist program seeks to eliminate any level of representation that does not have an interface with an extralinguistic performance system. Thus, PF and LF are motivated as independent levels of representations, since they no doubt constitute an interface with the auditory-perceptual (A-P) system and the conceptual-intentional (C-I) system, respectively. In contrast, neither D-structure nor S-structure is motivated in the same way, and their existence was motivated simply on theory-internal grounds. Reconsideration of the core frameworks rendered these levels superfluous, and, consequently, these two levels of representation have been eliminated in accordance with the spirit of the minimalist program. Similarly, the LCS, as well as other lexical levels of representations, is mostly motivated on theory-internal grounds, and, furthermore, most of the facts described by means of these levels can be reanalyzed in terms of purely syntactic notions (see Ogawa 1997:chapter 6). Then, we would not be inclined to take the elsewhere generation approach, since it is incompatible with the minimalist program of linguistic theory. An alternative approach that is compatible with the minimalist program is to suppose that all deverbal nominals are originally formed in syntax in the same way as CENs or SENs and that some of them, which undergo (semantic) type shifting or metaphorical extension and come to be used to refer to a concrete object, are later subject to a certain syntactic reanalysis that changes a phrasal category (NzP) into an X°-level category (cf. Larson's (1988) V'-reanalysis, whicx also changes V into V°) and then 'stored' in the lexicon under the tag of N.36 When it is subject to a later use, it is picked out of the lexicon and introduced into syntax as the lexical category N. Since this second approach does not necessitate any phrase structure or any transformational rules (such as headmovement) in the lexicon, we can regard the lexicon as a mere storage of lexical items which possibly have derivative or idiosyncratic meanings. Furthermore, this approach immediately explains why there is no deverbal RN that lacks its CEN/SEN counterparts (though there may be CEN or SENs that lacks their RN counterparts). Let us call this 'the reanalysis approach'. The reanalysis approach is an essentially syntactic approach to RNs, though we identify RNs as instances of the category N as a result of the reanalysis. In this approach, the fact that a RN can be pluralized follows from its categorial status, that is, it is N, and the fact that it has the same morphology follows from its derivational history, that is, a RN, as well as its CEN counterpart, is formed by syntactic verb raising. The reanalysis of a phrasal category as an X°-level category is not unique to the derivation of RNs from CEN/SENs, but is commonly observed elsewhere. Consider the following examples:37


200 (205) a. b. c. d. e.

every men's room (Barker 1991:7) behind-the-scene contacts (Time, June 17, 1985, p.34) a once-in-a-lifetime thing (Newsweek, October 13, 1980) walk-on-eggs negotiations (Time, March 17, 1980, p.6) spur-of-the-moment comment (Asahi Evening News, November 22, 1985)

In (205a), the DP men's room is reanalyzed as a noun (N), as indicated by the singular agreement between every and room and the idiomatic meaning of men's room here as a bathroom. This case is most similar to what we are assuming about the formation of RNs. In (205b-e), the PP behind the scene, the AdvP once in a lifetime, the VP walk on eggs, and the NP spur of the moment are all reanalyzed as adjectives (A). Expressions of this kind can be newly coined, and the phrases that have been reanalyzed are subject to every syntactic constraint (e.g., eggs-on-walk negotiations is ill-formed in the same way as John eggs on walked is). If they are originally formed by applications of Merge in syntax followed by the reanalysis of XP as Y°, then the same derivation should also apply to the formation of RNs. Hence, we conclude that RNs, as well as CENs and SENs, are originally formed in syntax (by head-movement), in conformity with every syntactic constraint, and, after that, they are stored in the lexicon, as a result of type shifting, under the category N. 3.6.4 Sentential Complements to Nouns We have put aside the second problem mentioned at the outset of section 6, which is most abstractly stated as follows: why is it that the sentential complements in sister to derived nominals (generally) do not have the same syntactic and semantic interpretations as those in sister to verbs? Let us first illustrate a more comprehensive set of relevant data, review the previous analyses of the data made by Stowell (1981), Grimshaw (1990), and Valois (1991), and then proceed to our own explanation. 3.6.4.1 The Data In this subsection, we summarize various properties of sentential complements to nouns and the nouns that take a sentential complement. First of all, Stowell (1981) points out that sentential complements to nouns are interpreted only as modifiers in apposition to the nouns and cannot be interpreted as their internal arguments. As expected, the sentential complements in (206) can be related to the head nouns across the copula, as in (207): (206) a. Andrea's guess [that Bill was lying]. b. John's claim [that he would win]. c. Paul's explanation [that he was temporally insane].

Derived Nominals and Their Satellites (207) a, b. c.

201

[Andrea's guess] was [that Bill was lying]. [John's claim] was [that he would win]. [Paul's explanation] was [that he was temporally insane].

In Grimshaw's (1990) terms, these derived nominals are classified into result nominals (RNs). These derived nominals are used as CENs or SENs elsewhere, and they can be analyzed as RNs only when they select a sentential complement. Thus, (208b) is ill-formed: (208) a. b.

John's claim of innocence *John's claim is of innocence

In contrast to claim in (206b) and (207b), claim in (208a-b) functions as either CEN or SEN, and hence it cannot be separate from its complement by the copula. Second, CENs can never take a sentential complement either as one of their internal arguments or as an appositive modifier. This is surprising in view of the fact that the internal arguments of the same CENs must always be realized when they are noun phrases. Consider the following data, taken from Grimshaw (1990): (209) a.

The constant announcement *(of unavoidable problems) is to be avoided. b. *Their constant announcement that they were the greatest eventually became tiresome. (210) a. The announcement *(of inaccurate results) in order to impress the public is not condoned. b. *The announcement that results have been achieved in order to impress the public is not condoned.

Example (209a) shows that the aspectual modifier can modify only CENs, and (209b) shows that the derived nominal, disambiguated as CEN by the addition of the aspectual modifier, is incompatible with a sentential complement. Example (210a) shows that a rationale clause is compatible only with CENs, and (210b) shows that the derived nominal, disambiguated as CEN by the addition of the rationale clause, is incompatible with a sentential complement. Third, Grimshaw points out an interesting asymmetry between the Poss-ing gerunds (or verbal gerunds) and ing-of gerunds (or nominal gerunds) with respect to sentential complementation. Consider, first, the following contrast: (211) a. b.

Their unexpectedly/*unexpected announcing the solution (Grimshaw 1990:77) Their careful/*carefully rebuilding of the city (adapted from Abney 1987:216)

Example (21 la) shows that verbal gerunds, which assign Accusative Case to their objects, can be modified only by adverbs, and (211b) shows that nominal

202


gerunds, which assign Genitive Case to their objects, can be modified only by adjectives. With this in mind, consider, next, the following example: (212) Their unexpectedly/*unexpected announcing [that...] (Grimshaw 1990:77) Example (212) shows that the gerund that takes a sentential complement shows the property of verbal gerunds rather than nominal gerunds. By the way, note that the verbal gerunds and nominal gerunds are not semantically identical. Consider the contrast between (213a) and (213b): (213) a. *John's fixing the sink was skillful. (=(185a)) b. John's fixing of the sink was skillful, (adapted from Abney 1987:245) The manner adjectives such as skillful can be predicated only of a noun phrase denoting a complex event. Given this, the contrast between (213a) and (213b) shows that nominal gerunds are CENs, whereas verbal gerunds are not.38 This conclusion is also compatible with the fact that the verbal gerunds can accompany a temporal modifier, whereas CENs cannot (see (171a-b)). Suppose, therefore, that the opposition between the nominal gerunds and the verbal gerunds parallels the opposition between CENs and SENs in terms of their event structures. Then, the example in (212) indicates that the gerundial nominals that can take a sentential complements are identified with SENs. Therefore, the sentential complement in (212) is not in apposition to the verbal gerund but is qualified as its internal argument. On the basis of these data, Grimshaw (1990) presents the following generalization (ibid.:74): (214)

Nouns with sentential complements consistently and systematically act as result nominals or simple event nominals and not as complex event nominals.

If we take into account the thematic relations between the head nouns and their sentential complements and restate (214) from the viewpoint of the sentential complements rather than nouns, we obtain the following three generalizations: (215) a. CENs: the sentential complements to them are precluded in English, whatever interpretation they have with respect to the head nouns. b. SENs: the sentential complements to them can be interpreted as the internal arguments in English. c. RNs: the sentential complements to them must be interpreted as appositive modifiers in English. (Incidentally, (215b) is compatible with our earlier claim that complements to SENs must be their internal arguments.)


203

3.6.4.2 Previous Analyses While the distinction between CENs and SENs was not made before Grimshaw (1990), (215b) has been known since Stowell (1981). He argues that the failure of an event nominal to take a sentential complement is a consequence of the interaction of two factors: first, in order to receive a 9 -role, arguments must be Case-marked (the Visibility Condition); but nouns are not Case assigners, nor is of-insertion available between N and CP because of the Case Resistance Principle. As a result, the CP in question cannot be an argument but must be an appositive modifier. On the other hand, event nominals must saturate every 9 role they have in their argument structure. Hence, event nominals cannot take a CP complement. This explanation of (215b) is essentially carried over to Grimshaw (1990). She departs from Stowell in assuming that nouns are 'defective 9 -markers' and that, as a result, they need a preposition to transmit their 6 -roles. Since CPs cannot be preceded by a preposition, they cannot receive a 9 -role from a noun; if it were an argument, a 9 -criterion violation would ensue. Hence, CENs cannot take a sentential complement. We cannot adopt their explanations for the following four reasons. First, we are claiming that nouns assign Case in the same way as verbs, and we argue in chapter 4 that the obligatory of-insertion is a mere reflection of the overt verb raising to Nz, just as the obligatory overt complementizer is a reflection of the overt verb raising to v. Second, DP complements and CP complements in English differ with respect to the possibility of of-insertion, though the prohibition against of-insertion before a CP-complement does not hold universally. Thus, the same Case-marker that attaches to a DP complement to N can attaches to a CP complement to N in languages such as Chinese, Danish, Japanese, and Spanish, under certain environments. Nevertheless, the CP-complement must be interpreted in apposition to some nouns such as syutyou 'claim': (216) a.

John-niyoru muzai-no syutyou-wa... John-by innocence-Gen claim-Top 'John's claim of innocence is . . . " b. [Bill-ga yuuzai dearu to]-no John-no syutyou-wa... Bill-Norn guilty is Comp-Gen John-Gen claim-Top 'John's claim that Bill is guilty is ...'

Stowell's and Grimshaw's systems predict that, if insertion of a Case-marker between N and CP is possible, the CP can be interpreted as an internal argument of the N; otherwise, the ill-formedness of (209b) cannot be explained. However, the fact is that the CP-complement in (216) cannot be interpreted as an internal argument of syutyou. Third, it is unreasonable to assume that Ns are defective 9 markers that cannot assign a 0 -role to their complement CP without a mediation of a preposition, for the following reasons: adjectives in English cannot take a DP complement without of-insertion, either, which would force Stowell and

204


Grimshaw to assume that adjectives in English are defective 9 -markers. Nevertheless, their CP complements can be interpreted as their internal arguments without of-insertion. Fourth, as we have already seen in (65a-c), the CP complements to the nouns derived from semifactive verbs are their internal arguments. In their systems, however, there is no way to assign a 9 -role to the CP complements here. A similar problem also arises in the modal construction such as in (22). In short, all their problems arise from their claim that the failure of of-insertion between N and CP is responsible for the appositive interpretation of the CP. Valois (1991) proposes a different approach to the same issue. He argues, under a compromise approach to nominalization similar to ours (which assumes overt verb raising to a nominal functional category to form action nominals), that every internal argument must move to [Spec, V] to get Case, though CP cannot move to the position, since tensed clauses are not allowed in A-specifier position. If the CP cannot get Case, the Visibility Condition prevents 9 -marking to the CP. Therefore, the CP cannot be licensed as an argument of a derived nominal. Since Valois's explanation is also crucially dependent on the CP/DP distinction, the problems with Stowell's/Grimshaw's theory also apply to his theory. In addition, the fact that the CP-complement of a verb is licensed as an internal argument in (217) appears problematic: (217)

They announced that the position has been filled.

Noticing this problem, Valois argues that in the clausal domain, insertion of a (null) expletive to [Spec, V] and formation of an A-chain with the CP in the Vcomplement is possible. As a result, the CP can receive a 9 -role through the Achain headed by the Case-marked expletive. The same mechanism does not apply to the CP in the N-complement, since no expletive is licensed in noun phrases: (218) a. b.

I mentioned it that Neille is in town. *The mention of it that Neille is in town, (ibid.: 109)

However, this explanation of the verb-noun asymmetry has at least two problems. First, the prohibition against placing a tensed clause in an A-specifier, as in (219a), is voided if the CP is moved to an A'-position as in (219b): (219) a. b.

*John didn't think (that) [that Susan would be late] was very likely, [That Susan would be late]i, John didn't think ti would be likely. (Horn 1975:335)

This contrast follows from Webelhuth's (1989) claim that the trace of a moved CP behaves on a par with DPs. If this claim is valid, it should be predicted that if CP moves to an A'-position inside or outside of a noun phrase, through [Spec, V] in the noun phrase headed by V, the trace left in [Spec, V] can be Case-marked for the same reasons that it is in (219b). Thus, it could be interpreted as the


205

internal argument of the derived nominal. This prediction is not borne out, however. Example (220a) shows that the CP-complement is scrambled to an A'position across the DP referring to the 'claimer', and, nevertheless, the CP can be interpreted only in apposition to the derived nominal. In (220b), the CP is moved out of the noun phrase headed by the derived nominal, and the sentence is judged as ill-formed, regardless of whether the CP is to be interpreted as an argument or an appositive modifier:39 (220) a.

[itiniti ippai-no koohii-ga gan saibou-ni kiku toiu]i a day a cup-Gen cofee-Nom cancer cells-Dat effective Comp John-niyoru ti syutyou John-by claim 'the claim by John that a cup of coffee a day is effective against cancer cells' b. *[That this food is cancer-causing]i, I read [Kripke's proof t,].

The ill-formedness of (220b) stands in a stark contrast with the well-formedness of the corresponding extraction of a noun phrase argument as in (221): (221)

Which theory did you read Kripke's proof of?

(Safir 1987:591)

If the movement of the CP by leaving a trace in the relevant [Spec, V] were a sufficient condition for it to be interpreted as the internal argument of a derived nominal, then the interpretation should be available in examples like (220a-b). The second problem with Valois's system is concerned with his claim that forming an A-chain between an expletive and a CP complement to V is a necessary condition for the CP to receive a 9 -role. This claim sounds too strong, since the transitive verbs that permit an expletive in an object position are a proper subset of factive verbs, and non-factive verbs do not permit it. Even the same factive verbs sometimes do not permit it depending on the contexts in which they occur (the following examples are all taken from Rothstein 1995): (222) a. b. c. (223) a. b. c.

I regret it that he was late. They confirmed it that you had passed the entrance exam. He resent it that his friends worked so hard. They suspect (*it) that John was a crook. They believed (*it) that John was a crook. They had expected (???it) that she'd be arrested, and were relieved when she wasn't. (224) a. I regretted (??it) that John was intending to apply to law school. b. They resented (??it) that you might be going to emigrate to Australia. If Valois were correct, in examples in (223) and (224), the CP complements would not receive a Case through the expletive in [Spec, V], and hence they should be void of a -role. To account for the fact that the CP complements in


206

these cases are internal arguments, he must posit an obligatorily null expletive. However, postulation of such an obligatorily null syntactic entity is conceptually skeptical. One irreducible difference between DPs and CPs in English is that the former can occur in a typical Case position, whereas the latter cannot, and Stowell's (1981), Grimshaw's (1990), and Valois's (1991) explanations of the nonargument interpretation of the sentential complements to nouns are more or less dependent on this difference. If the Visibility Condition, which decrees that Case-marking is a precondition on 9 -marking, must apply to CPs as well as DPs, their explanations may be logical possibilities. However, we have to reject their common assumption that assignment of Case to a CP is a necessary and sufficient condition for it to be interpreted as an argument, for the reasons noted earlier. Although the failure of of-insertion between N and CP may be a relevant factor, it it does not have to be linked to the failure of 9 -role assignment from N to CP. With this in mind, let us move on to our own explanation. 3.6.4.3

The CP-movement for V-feature Checking

The generalizations to be explained are repeated below as (225a-c): (225) a.

CENs: the sentential complements to them are precluded in English, whatever interpretation they have with respect to the head nouns. b. SENs: the sentential complements to them can be interpreted as the internal arguments in English. c. RNs: the sentential complements to them must be interpreted as appositive modifiers in English.

We explain these generalizations by referring to the categorial status of the sentential complements to nouns. Webelhuth (1989) proposes that a CP is unmarkedly specified as a nominal category,40 though it is verbal if its head has a V-feature that can be checked against the clausemate verb in a V2 configuration. Slightly modifying this idea, let us propose that every CP, whether it is headed by an overt C or the null C, is unmarkedly assigned an uninterpretable V-feature in addition to its inherent (interpretable) N-feature and that the CP in a complement position must move to a Spec in order to have its uninterpretable V-feature checked off. This means that the CPs in question are being similar to APs prior to the checking of the uninterpretable V-feature, since they are both categorially [+N, +V]. Although this proposal might sound counter-intuitive at first sight, there are at least three pieces of evidence for this proposal. First, if CPs in question are [+N, +V], of-insertion, which applies if and only if a nominal head takes a nominal complement, should not apply between N and its CP complement, for the same reasons that there is no of-insertion between N and its AP complement. This prediction is indeed borne out:


207

(226) a. John's claim *(of) innocence b. John's claim (*of) [that Bill is guilty] c. The man (*of) [proud of his son] Second, overt V-to-C is possible in the complement of N in German: (227) [Die Behauptung [keiner habe davon gewusst]] ist naturlich falsch. the claim no one has-SUBJ of-that known is of course wrong The claim that no one knew about this is of course wrong.' If the C head has an (uninterpretable) V-feature, it is naturally expected that V can move to C. What is important in (227) is that the V-to-C movement also occurs in the complement of a noun. Third, as we have pointed out earlier, in Japanese, there are two complementizers that are morphologically distinguished: to and toiu. There, I claimed nothing about their categorial status. Now, let me propose that to is a complementizer of a nominal category (or 'nominal complementizer'), whereas toiu is a complementizer of a verbal category (or 'verbal complementizer'). Then, we can account for the following contrast: (228) a. John-niyoru [Bill-ga yuuzai da toiu] (*-no) syutyou John-by Bill-Norn guilty is Comp-Gen claim 'John's claim that Bill is guilty' b. John-niyoru [Bill-ga yuuzai da to] *(-no) syutyou (in the same meaning as (228a)) No is a Japanese counterpart of the Genitive Case marker of in English (cf. Murasugi 1991). The contrast in (228) shows that no-insertion is required in sister to the finite clause headed by to, whereas it is prohibited in sister to the finite clause headed by toiu. Other things being equal, this asymmetry must be attributed to the categorial difference of the overt complementizers. With this in mind, consider the following contrast, which shows that the finite clausal complements to nonderived simple nominals, such as zizitu 'fact', cannot be headed by the nominal complementizer: (229) a. b.

[John-ga kinou kokoni ita toiu] zizitu John-Norn yesterday here was Comp(V) fact 'the fact that John was here yesterday' ?*[John-ga kinou kokoni ita to] no zizitu John-Nom yesterday here was Comp(N) Gen fact (= the same intended meaning as (229a))

This contrast may be parallel to the following contrast in English:

208


(230) a. I enjoy the fact that I sing loudly. b. *I enjoy the fact of my singing loudly. (Bland 1985:62) If the Japanese complementizer to is of a nominal category, the ill-formedness of (229b) can be assimilated to that of (230b), with the assumption that the noun fact and its Japanese counterpart cannot c-select a nominal category. Given this assumption, the well-formedness of (229a) and (230a) suggests that that in English and the Japanese complementizer toiu are not of a nominal category.41 Given the fact that toiu can be lexically decomposed into to and iu, where the right-hand head iu is isomorphic with the verb iu 'say', if not semantically identical, it is not unreasonable to assume that toiu is of a verbal category. We have demonstrated that Japanese has both the nominal complementizer and the verbal complementizer, which are distinguished not only morphologically but also by means of the no-insertion test. Although English, too, has two finite complementizers, that and , neither can pass the of-insertion test.42 This fact suggests that every CP in finite clauses in English is uniformly of a verbal category, and hence it always holds an (uninterpretable) V-feature. Assuming that this conclusion is valid, let us examine how the uninterpretable V-feature of each CP in English can be checked. As for a CP in [Spec, T] or [Spec, Pol], its V-feature can be checked against T or Pol, which are verbal categories in the extended projection of V. As for a CP at the complement of V/A, its V-feature can be checked against the selecting V/A by the C-to-V/A incorporation (note that A is [+N, +V]). If a CP is adjoined to a VP in the base, its V-feature can be checked in that position, since the VP-adjoined position is in the outer checking domain of V (cf. chapter 1). The clausal 'complement' of a manner-of-speaking verb may be analyzed in this way, since it is not lexically selected by the verb. CPs in an extraposed position may be similarly analyzed. In short, no technical problem arises about V-feature checking for the clauses that are in the minimal domain of V or A. The V-feature of the CP at the complement of N (such as zizitu,fact) cannot be checked off in the same way. Let us, therefore, propose that it is checked against the head of DP. As we have seen, the definite article can be modified by adverbs, which is a property shared by V and A. Since the common ground of V and A is that they have a [+V] feature, the fact that D, V, and A behave alike suggests that D also has a [+V] feature. Along these lines, it is reasonable to claim that the CP at the complement of N can have its V-feature licensed by its movement to [Spec, D]. Subsequent to this movement, the CP escapes from the scope of D. Hence, it must be interpreted as a modifier in apposition to the NP. As for the sentential complements to derived nominals, further factorization is needed. Concerning RNs, the same analysis that is given to the simple nonderived nominals should apply to them, since we are assuming that they lexically belong to the category N. The generalization in (215c) is explained in this way. In contrast, we are assuming that CENs are syntactically derived by overt verb raising to Nz. The relevant structure will be schematized as in (231). In (231), the V-features of C is uninterpretable, whereas that of D is interpretable:


209

One way to check off the uninterpretable V-feature of C is for D to attract it to its checking domain. This attraction does not succeed, however, since there intervenes another verbal category VP between them, and attraction of the CP dominated by the VP leads to a violation of the Minimal Link Condition (MLC). Nor can D attract the VP, which is headed by a trace here. Condition (48) blocks such an attraction. Nor can D attract the V incorporated to Nz, since the V+Nz complex has already formed a word and a word-internal structure is not Visible to a syntactic operation. For the same reasons, the overt C cannot check its Vfeature by moving to the V in Nz in LF. Hence, the uninterpretable V-feature of C remains unchecked, and the derivation crashes at LF.43 This is the explanation for why CENs (in English) cannot take a CP complement, whether it is interpreted as an internal argument or appositive modifier. Put differently, we have so far explained (215a) and (215c), repeated below as (232a) and (232c): (232) a.

CENs: the sentential complements to them are precluded in English, whatever interpretation they have with respect to the head nouns. b. SENs: the sentential complements to them can be interpreted as the internal arguments in English. c. RNs: the sentential complements to them must be interpreted as appositive modifiers in English.

The claim that the appositive modification reading of a certain phrase is only as a consequence of its movement to [Spec, D], also explains why a nominal complement of a derived nominal cannot be interpreted in apposition to it, as shown in (233b): (233) a. John's claim is [that he would win]. b. *John's claim is of innocence, (cf. John's claim is that of innocence) Since it is reasonable to assume that the noun phrase headed by a bona fide nominal category such as innocence in (233b) cannot have an uninterpretable Vfeature, it cannot move to [Spec, D] for the sake of V-feature checking. Therefore, in order to receive an appositive reading, it must be able to move to [Spec, D] for Case checking. However, to the extent that innocence is interpreted

210


as the internal argument of claim, claim here must be either a CEN or an SEN, since on our assumptions RN cannot take an internal argument. Then, NzP necessarily intervenes between VP and DP. Therefore, the Shortest Movement Condition, an economy condition, requires that the first step of the movement of innocence must be to [Spec, Nz] rather than [Spec, D]. Once it stops by [Spec, Nz], it cannot move further to [Spec, D], since the Case feature of a noun phrase, once checked off, is erased and cannot be accessed to a further computation (Chomsky 1995), and since the Last Resort Principle prohibits unnecessary steps of derivations. Consequently, innocence in (233b) has no way to move to [Spec, D]. This explains why it cannot be in apposition to claim. In contrast to the nominal complement in (233b), those in (234) can be interpreted in apposition to the head nouns:44 (234) a. b. c.

the state of California the virtue of charity at the age of five

Since nouns such as state, virtue, and age are simple nominals, they do not project up to NzP, and the definite articles in (234) directly select an NP complement, whose head in turn selects a DP complement. Then, the LF movement of the DP complement to [Spec, D] for Case checking does not violate the Shortest Movement Condition or the Last Resort Principle. Consequently, the appositive reading successfully obtains in these examples. Similarly, among the prenominal Genitive DPs, which we are assuming to fill [Spec, D], some are freely subject to the interpretation of appositive modification:45 (235) a. The examination was John's, (cf. John's examination) b. The proof of the theorem was ours. (cf. Our proof of the theorem) ((a)-(b): Lebeaux 1986:246) c. That idea for changing the rules was John's. (Anderson 1983:14) d. That newspaper is yesterday's. (ibid.:l 1) This fact is not surprising, either, since an element in [Spec, D] is outside the scope of the D head. Note, finally, that we have not relied on the Visibility Condition to rule out a sentential complement to a CEN. In fact, as far as the data in English are concerned, the Stowell/Grimshaw-type explanation is incompatible with the present system, since we are assuming that CENs are formed by V-to-Nz incorporation in overt syntax, and since V can assign a 9 -role to its complement without aid of a preposition or a Case-marker (recall Grimshaw's assumption that nouns, but not verbs, are defective 6 -role assigners). Therefore, our explanation of the generalization concerning CENs (in English) does not involve theoretical redundancy.


211

3.6.4.4. The Sentential Complements to SENs in English and Verbal Nouns in Japanese In this subsection, we discuss the only remaining generalization in (215), which can be restated as in (236): (236)

SENs: the sentential complements to them can be interpreted as the internal arguments in English.

This generalization is based on the observation that nominals derived from semifactive verbs and their complement CPs are not in an appositive relation. Two more pieces of evidence come from the fact that, in (237a-b), the disjointness holds between the Realizer role and John in the following: (237) a. The realization that John was unpopular upset him. b. Yesterday's realization that John was a fool (Williams 1985:306) He uses this fact as evidence for his claim that binding conditions are defined in terms of argument structure. What is relevant to our discussion is that, in order to exclude the particular interpretation of (237a-b) by the Binding Condition (C), the external argument of the derived nominal realization must be visible to the Binding Condition (C), if it is an implicit argument in argument structure, even if it is not syntactically realized. That realization here has its argument structure means that it is not an RN, since RNs, by definition, do not have argument structure. The availability of temporal modification in (237b) also shows that the head noun is SEN, since neither CENs or RNs do not allow temporal modification (cf. (172a-b)). The well-formedness of (237a-b) shows that the SEN realization can take a sentential complement as its internal argument. Realization behaves on a par with other nominals derived from semifactive verbs in another respect. Anderson (1983) presents the following examples: (238) a. The realization that John was a fool disturbed him. b. The admission that John was wrong didn't bother him. c. The recognition that John was wrong didn't bother him. (ibid.: 15) In (238a-c), him cannot be coreferential with John. This fact contrasts with the fact that, with the following derived nominals based on nonfactive verbs, him can be coreferential with John: (239) a. The claim that John was wrong didn't bother him. b. The suggestion that John was wrong didn't bother him. c. The announcement that John was wrong didn't bother him. Another factor that distinguishes between derived nominals in (238) and those in

212


(239) is that, while the sentential complements in the latter can be related to them across a copula, those in the former cannot (cf. (63a-c)): (240) a. b. c. (241) a. b. c.

*The realization is that John was a fool. *The admission is that John was wrong. *The recognition is that John was wrong. The claim is that that John was wrong. The suggestion is that that John was wrong. The announcement is that that John was wrong.

Examples (241a-c) show that the sentential complements to the nouns in (239) are their appositive modifiers. The Ns that take an appositive complement are RNs, as stated in the generalization (215c). RNs do not select an external argument that would c-command John. Therefore, in (239), the Binding Condition (C) is not violated. On the other hand, the ill-formedness of (240a-c) shows that the sentential complements to the nouns in (238) are interpreted as their internal arguments. The Ns that take a sentential complement as their internal argument are SENs, which select the external argument as their implicit argument (if not syntactically realized). Therefore, if the implicit external argument of the nouns in (238a-c) is coreferential with John, it binds John in the complement clause and the Binding Condition (C) is violated. Given that a SEN can take a sentential complement and that it can be interpreted as its internal argument rather than its appositive modifier, we need to assume that the head of the CP complement to a SEN in English never has an uninterpretable V-feature (though it is left as a possibility that the CP in question has an interpretable V-feature; see below for a related discussion); otherwise, the feature would remain unchecked because of the MLC and the derivation would crash at LF. If the sentential complement to a SEN does not have an uninterpretable V-feature, it does not have to move to [Spec, D] but may remain in situ. Thus, the fact that it is not interpreted in apposition to the SEN follows straightforwardly. By contrast, suppose that the CP complement to a CEN must always have an uninterpretable V-feature; Then, it has to move to [Spec, D] for V-feature checking, though such a movement necessarily violates the MLC. This is the reason why a CEN cannot take a sentential complement. Finally, the sentential complements to RN must also move to [Spec, D] in order to check a Vfeature; otherwise, they would not receive any interpretation. Hence, the appositive interpretation necessarily ensues. This distinction between SENs and CENs with respect to the assignment of an uninterpretable V-feature to their CP complements remains stipulative at this point. However, we may emphasize that our theory is compatible with the fact that a sentential complement to some noun can be interpreted as its internal argument, whereas the Stowell/Grimshaw/Valois-type explanations, which depend on the Visibility Condition, predict that all sentential complements to nouns are interpreted as their appositive modifiers. We have pointed out that Japanese, unlike English, has two types of


213

complementizers, toiu and to, which we have called the verbal and nominal complementizers, respectively. Observing this fact, the simplest picture we expect is that the morphological form of a complementizer is always in correspondence with the set of formal features it has: the verbal complementizer toiu has an uninterpretable V-feature, whereas the nominal complementizer to, accompanied by the Genitive Case-marker no, has an uninterpretable Case feature. With this in mind, consider the following data. First, RNs such as syutyou 'claim' in (242) can select both the verbal and nominal complementizers: (242) a. b.

[John-ga yuuzai dearu toiu] syutyou John-Nom guilty be-Pres Comp claim 'the claim that John is guilty' [John-ga yuuzai dearu to]-no syutyou

The CP complements in (242) must be in apposition to syutyou, just like the CP complement to claim, since the CP and the head N can occur across the copula: (243)

Bill-no syutyou-wa [John-ga yuuzai dearu toiu]-koto da. Bill-Gen claim-Top John-Nom guilty is Comp-fact is 'Bill's claim is that John is guilty.'

Second, SENs such as isiki 'realization' and nintei 'recognition' can also select both the verbal and nominal complementizers: [Indonesia-ga genzai kikenna zyousei dearu toiu] isiki Indonesia-Nom now dangerous situation be-Pres Comp realization 'The realization that Indonesia is now in a dangerous situation' b. [Indonesia-ga genzai kikenna zyousei dearu to]-no isiki (245) a. [John-ga sinsyousha dearu toiu] nintei John-Nom handicapped be-Pres Comp recognition 'the recognition that John is a handicapped person' b. [John-ga sinsyousha dearu to]-no nintei (244) a.

The CP complements in (244)-(245) must be the internal arguments of isiki and nintei, just like the CP complements to realization and recognition, since the CP and the head N cannot occur across the copula here: (246) a.

b.

*John-no isiki-wa [Indonesia-ga genzai kikenna zyousei John-Gen realization-Top Indonesia-Nom now dangerous situation dearu toiu]-koto da. be-Pres Comp-fact be-Pres 'John's realization is that Indonesia is now in a dangerous situation.' *Bill-no nintei-wa [John-ga sinsyousha dearu Bill-Gen recognition-Top John-Nom handicapped person be-Pres toiu]-koto da. Comp-fact be-Pres 'Bill's recognition is that John is a handicapped person.'

214


In short, both the RNs and SENs in Japanese can select both the verbal and nominal complementiziers, and in spite of this, the CP complement to a RN must be in apposition to it, whereas the CP complement to a SEN must be its internal argument. This fact raises three questions, given our earlier claim that an appositive interpretation is a result of the movement of the CP to [Spec, D] and that the internal argument interpretation is a result of the absence of the same movement. First, why is the CP in (242b) interpreted in apposition to the RN, whether it is nominal or verbal? Second, why is the CP in (244b) interpreted as the internal argument of the SEN, whether it is nominal or verbal? Third, where does such a difference in interpretation between (242) and (244) come from? In what follows, we resolve these three questions in consideration of the syntax and morphology of the Japanese language, as opposed to English. What seems to be the most important difference between Japanese and English is that the nouns such as syutyou in (242) and isiki and nintei in (244) are different from claim, realization, and recognition, in that the former are verbal nouns (VNs) that are not derived from any other category, whereas the latter are deverbal nominals. A characteristic of verbal nouns is that they are verbal in a sense and nominal in another sense. With this in mind, consider, first, the cases of SENs. The structure of (244) can be schematized as in (247): (247)

[DP [NzP [VNP [ CP ... C (toiu/to-no)] VN (nintei/isiki)} Nz] D]

Suppose, now, that the VNs which are SENs such as nintei and isiki must have a verbal feature. Then, the movement of the verbal CP to [Spec, D] violates the MLC, since the VN is the closest category that can check the V-feature of D. Suppose, however, that VN in (247) does not move to Nz overtly.46 Then, the uninterpretable V-feature of toiu can be checked against the VN by incorporating the former to the latter in LF, and the derivation converges at LF. When the nominal CP is used, the uninterpretable Genitive Case no attached to it needs to be checked. The closest potential landing site for the CP is [Spec, Nz], rather than [Spec, D]. Hence, the derivation is legitimized if and only if it moves to [Spec, Nz]. Importantly, as a result of either derivation, the CP is in the c-command domain of D in LF, and therefore interpreted as the internal argument of the SEN. Consider, next, the cases of RNs. The structure of (242) can be schematized as in (248): (248)

[DP [VNP [ CP .- C (toiu/to-no)} VN (syutyou)] D]

One visible difference between (247) and (248) is that, in the latter, there is no projection of NzP. This is reasonable, given our assumption that NzP, just like vP, is a projection for the external argument and that RNs do not select an external argument. As another difference between (247) and (248), let us suppose that the VNs which are RNs such as syutyou do not have a verbal feature. Given these differences, the movement of the verbal CP to [Spec, D] for the checking of the


215

uninterpretable V-feature of the C in (248) does not violate the MLC, since the CP is the closest verbal category to D. When the nominal CP is used, the uninterpretable Genitive Case no attached to it needs to be checked. The closest potential landing site for the CP is [Spec, D], since there is no NzP in (248). Therefore, in this case, too, the CP is moved to [Spec, D]. In either case, the moved CP is outside of the c-command domain of D in LF, and therefore it is interpreted in apposition to the head N. We observed that both SENs and RNs in Japanese can select both the verbal and nominal complementizers, though the sentential complements to SENs are interpreted as their internal arguments, whereas the sentential complements to RNs are interpreted in apposition to them. We explained these facts without weakening the simplest assumption that the morphological form of a complementizer is always in correspondence with the set of formal features it has. We have assumed so far that a VN has a verbal feature when it is interpreted as SEN (an event nominal), whereas it does not have a verbal feature when it is interpreted as RN (a nonevent nominal). This does not mean that there is a correlation between the semantics of a VN and the set of formal features it has. In fact, unlike the close relation between syntax and morphology, syntax and semantics may be two autonomous components of grammar. Moreover, we cannot predetermine the categorial status of a VN, because it is neither V nor N. Thus, if a VN is CEN (an event nominal), it may lack a verbal feature. Recall also that, in our theory, CENs in English cannot take an appositive sentential complement not because of semantic or theta-theoretic reasons but because of a purely syntactic reason that it cannot move out of VP to [Spec, D] without violating the MLC. Given these considerations, we make one prediction: if a sentential complement to a SEN, which is VN in Japanese, does not have a Vfeature, the sentential complement can be in apposition to the CEN. This prediction is actually borne out. Compare the well-formed Japanese example in (249a) with the ill-formed English example (249b), which is taken from Grimshaw( 1990:75): (249) a.

[Kono kusuri-o ninsintyuuni hukuyou site-wa-ikenai this medicine-Ace during-pregnancy taking do-Top-not toiu] tabikasanaru tyuukoku nimokakawarazu ... Comp frequent announcing(VN) despite 'despite the frequent announcement that you may not take this medicine while pregnant...' b. *Their frequent announcement that they were the greatest eventually became tiresome.

Tyuukoku in (249a) and announcement in (249b) are CENs because they are modified by aspectual adjectives (tabikasanaru and frequent, respectively). In (249a), where the CEN is headed by the VN that does not have a V-feature, the uninterpretable V-feature of toiu can be checked off by moving the whole CP to

216


[Spec, D]. Hence, the CP can be interpreted in apposition to the CEN. In (249b), on the other hand, the CEN is a complex category formed by the incorporation of V to Nz, and V always has a V-feature. Hence, the CP cannot move to [Spec, D] without violating the MLC. However, it cannot have its uninterpretable V-feature checked without moving to [Spec, D]. Thus, (249b) is ruled out. Here, again, this distinction between SENs on the one hand and CENs and RNs on the other with respect to whether or not they have a verbal feature remains stipulative (except that SENs are exceptional again). However, what is important is that our theory is compatible with the fact that there is some CEN that can take a sentential complement, whereas the Stowell/Grimshaw/Valoistype explanations, which depend on the semantic constraints such as the Visibility Condition (and the Theta Criterion), predict that there is no CEN that can take a sentential complement. 3.6.4.5 A Summary In this section, we have argued for the following points: (a) the previous observation that sentential complements to nouns are restricted both syntactically (CENs do not permit them) and semantically (they must always receive an appositive interpretation) are partially wrong; (b) previous solutions to the observation are falsified not only empirically but also theoretically, as far as the semantic constraints such as the Visibility Condition and/or the Theta Criterion play a crucial role in them; and (c) our morphosyntactic solution to the restriction, which is on the basis of the assignment of an (interpretable/uninterpretable) Vfeature to a particular category and of the MLC, is justified at least empirically.47 There remains arbitrariness concerning which category has a V-feature and which does not, and we have to eliminate this arbitrariness and derive the same effects from a restricted set of general principles ultimately. However, to the extent that the facts are not so simple as the previous theories based on semantic constraints predict, it may be safe to conclude that the restricted distribution and interpretation of the sentential complements to nouns is determined not by the interaction of semantic constraints but by the interaction of the morphosyntactic specifications of the verbs, nouns, determiners, and complementizers and a set of syntactic constraints such as the MLC or the Shortest Movement Condition. Note that our argument that the appositive interpretation of a sentential complement to nouns is a result of its LF movement to [Spec, D] is also an attempt to derive a certain semantic restriction of a category from its syntactic position. 3.6.5 The Derivation of Verbal Gerunds We have seen only instances that are compatible with under the assumption that a verbal category T selects vP as its complement, whereas a nominal category D selects NzP as its complement. Since we have shown that NzP is the nominal counterpart of vP, this assumption can be said to be an instance of the parallelism


217

between verbal and nominal projections. If verbal and nominal projections are to be unified at an abstract level, however, there is no reason why a verbal category must select a verbal category, whereas a nominal category must select a nominal category. In other words, given that there are two categories A and B where A is verbal and B is its nominal counterpart and that another category C can select A, it would be expected that C can also select B. Such a situation is prevailingly observed in the case of subcategorization of a verb. Thus, given a verb that can select a CP as its internal argument, it is often the case that it can also select DP as its complement; the only two notorious counterexamples to this generalization are inquire and wonder (Grimshaw 1979), as pointed out in chapter 1. In this section, I suggest that the alternation between verbal and nominal gerunds is another instance of this situation. More specifically, let us propose that verbal and nominal gerunds are almost identical and differ only in whether the functional category D selects v or Nz.48 Then, we obtain the structures in (251b) and (252b), respectively. They show that the two types of gerunds are both headed by the lexical category N. This last proposal is essentially in the spirit of Abney (1987:223): (251) a.Jahn's polishing of the apples

(252)a. John's polishing the apples

We have (implicitly) assumed that in English, v is not affixal, whereas Nz is affixal (hence, overt V-raising is required). In the same vein, let us assume that the Nz in (251b) is affixal, whereas the v in (252b) is not. The asymmetry in the affixal property of v and Nz is a matter of lexical specification in English. Given this particular specification, the verbal gerunds do not raise to v overtly for the same reasons as finite verbs do not. (Let us also assume that in these cases v/Nz is empty.) Given these proposals and assumptions, it is predicted that with respect to the licensability of the null C, the verbal gerunds should be parallel to the finite verbs, whereas nominal gerunds should be parallel to the derived nominals. In other words, it should be the case that verbal gerunds can license the null C in their complement, whereas nominal gerunds cannot. This prediction is essentially borne out. Compare (253) and (254) with (255) and (256):49


218 (253) a. b. c. (254) a. b. (255) a. b. c. (256) a. b. c.

* John's appearance to be dead *John's belief (of) Bill to be smart *John's gift (of) Mary (of) a bouquet * John's believing of Bill to be Caesar Augustus *John's giving of Mary a Fiat John appears to be dead. John believes Bill to be Caesar Augustus. John gave Mary a Fiat. John's appearing to be dead John's believing Bill to be Caesar Augustus John's giving Mary a Fiat ((256a-c) are taken from Abney 1987:16)

We have just assumed that verbal and nominal gerunds differ only in whether D selects vP or NzP. However, this is clearly an oversimplification, as noted in note 48. Another difference between them is that the definite article the can head DP in the nominal gerunds but not in the verbal gerunds: (257) a. b.

the fixing of the sink *the fixing the sink

(nominal gerunds) (verbal gerunds)

This means that verbal gerunds and nominal gerunds also differ in the feature specifications of the functional head D. In short, while the paradigms of verbal gerunds and nominal gerunds partially fall under the existing mechanisms by means of which we have defended a unified theory of verbal and nominal projections, they also indicate the limits of their unification (cf. chapter 1). 3.6.6 A Summary In this section, we have discussed to what extent verbs, derived nominals, and nonderived nominals can be unified and to what extent they have to be distinguished from one another. Essentially, the syntactic nominalization hypothesis leads us to assimilate the formation of derived nominals to the overt verb raising in languages like French. First, as for the complex event nominals (CENs), we have shown that their formation is exactly parallel to what occurs in the infinitive clauses in French in that both involve overt verb raising to the functional category that selects V in its complement, the only difference being that, while the former involves movement to the nominal functional category Nz, the latter involves movement to the verbal functional category v. Hence, in both cases, the realization of all the arguments of the relevant lexical categories is obligatory, and the CP complement cannot be headed by the null C. Second, as for the simple event nominals (SENs), we have argued that their syntactic and lexico-semantic properties are exactly parallel to those of middle verbs in English. Thus, neither permits Agent-oriented modifiers, neither can license the event control into a rationale clause, and SENs and middle verbs have undergone


219

zero derivation from CENs and transitive verbs, respectively. Third, as for result nominals (RNs), we have argued that they pattern with simple nonderived nominals because, although they are originally formed in the same way as CENs or SENs, they have been reanalyzed as N° and stored in the lexicon. This analysis of RNs enabled us to account not only for the idiosyncrasy of their meanings that are not predicted from those of the associated verbs but also for (i) the fact that both RNs and nonderived simple nominals do not take a CP complement headed by the null C, (ii) the fact that neither can take an internal argument, and (iii) the fact that their CP complement can only be interpreted in apposition to them. Specifically, we proposed and argued for the LF movement of the appositive CP complement to [Spec, D] for uninterpretable V-feature checking. This proposal, in conjunction with the syntactic nominalization hypothesis for CENs and SENs, enabled us to derive from the MLC the absence of an appositive modifier reading for a CP-complement to SENs and the impossibility of a CP-complement to CEN. The proposal also accounted for the fact that a CEN in Japanese, which is a verbal noun, can select a sentential complement interpreted as an appositive modifier. Finally, we have shown the limit of unification between verbal and nominal projections in consideration of the verbal and nominal gerunds. Essentially, our claim is that the various syntactic and semantic restrictions on the sentential complements to nouns result from morphosyntactic, not semantic, reasons.

3.7 Conclusion Starting from the presentation of the data concerning the distribution of the null C in the complement of a nominal category, in this chapter we have mainly argued for the syntactic nominalization hypothesis of CENs and SENs in English and for the LF movement hypothesis of the appositive clauses to [Spec, D] for V-feature checking. On the basis of the two hypotheses, in conjunction with the conditions (14), (32), and (48), we have accommodated the overall distribution of the null C in the minimal domains of verbs and nouns in a principled fashion. Specifically, we have presented and discussed the following generalizations that subsume both the phenomena in clauses and those in noun phrases: (258) If a CP cannot be headed by the null C, either (a) or (b) or (c) holds: a. The verb that selects it is overtly raised to a higher functional head that is a derivational suffix (v or Nz). b. The CP is in a noncomplement position either in overt syntax or at LF (e.g., topicalized CPs, CP complements to factive verbs, and CPs in apposition to nominals). c. The CP is underlyingly in an adjoined position (e.g., CPs associated with manner-of-speaking verbs and extraposed relative clauses). The generalization in (258a) was attributed to condition (14); (258b), to condition (48); and (258c), to condition (32). Since none of these devices refers to


220

the distinction between verbal and nominal categories, we have attained a full unification of verbal and nominal projections in the relevant fields (unlike Kayne 1981, who required a stipulative distinction between V and N). At the same time, we have left open two possibilities for the licensing of the null C, as summarized in (259): (259) a.

The null C can incorporate to the selecting head (e.g., the verbs in languages without overt verb-raising and the RNs in the modal construction in English), or b. The clausemate verb can adjoin to the null C (e.g., both V- and Ncomplements in German).

Since these cases are also observed in the complement of both verbs and nouns, they provide an additional piece of evidence for a unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. As for the syntactic nominalization hypothesis of CENs and SENs and the LF movement hypothesis of appositive clauses to [Spec, D] for V-feature checking, each of them has been motivated on independent grounds. The first hypothesis was justified in consideration of various causative constructions in English and other languages. The second hypothesis was motivated in consideration of the scopal property of the appositive clauses in relation to D (cf. Kayne 1994), among many others. The second hypothesis implies that the appositive modifier reading of certain clausal complements to Ns is simply a result of their LF movement to [Spec, D], which has the effect of getting them out of the c-command domain of D. The movement takes place only when the uninterpretable V-feature of the C cannot be satisfied without movement to [Spec, D], and hence we leave the possibility that the C with the feature is incorporated to the selecting head with a verbal feature if it does not violate condition (14) or (48). We also leave the possibility that the (head of the) CP remains in situ if it does not have the uninterpretable V-feature. The preference of our morphosyntactic theory over Grimshaw's (1990) and Valois's (1991) semantic theories based on the Visibility Condition and the Theta Criterion was shown by the existence of SENs that can take a CP complement as their internal arguments and of CENs that can take a CP complement as their appositive modifiers. In relation to the main theme of this chapter, we have also discussed a number of issues that can contribute to the unification of verbal and nominal projections. First, we have demonstrated that Genitive Case, like Nominative and Accusative Cases, are structural Cases, and hence it must be checked in a SpecHead relation. Second, we have argued that the light verb v in clauses and the nominalizer Nz in noun phrases are parallel in their selectional possibilities. Third, we have shown that all the peculiarities of SENs are shared by middle verbs. On the other hand, we have emphasized that verbal and nominal projections cannot be perfectly identified with each other. Above all, we have claimed that whether the main verbs raise to v and to Nz in overt syntax or in LF is a matter of


221

parameter setting and/or the affixal property of each item belonging to these categories, and hence it may differ both intra-linguistically and crosslinguistically. We have also emphasized that not all derived nominals are a monolith, either. We have derived several differences between CENs and SENs on the one hand and RNs and nonderived simple nominals on the other, from the hypothesis that the former are syntactically derived by overt verb raising to Nz, whereas the latter belong to the category N (a version of the compromise approach to nominalization). In relation to this, we have claimed that RNs are originally formed in the same way as other derived nominals, though a reanalysis renders them to be subsumed under the same category as simple nominals. Be that as it may, it is true that we have succeeded in the unification of clauses and nominal projections headed by derived nominals in many respects. Satisfying with these results, in the next chapter, we shift our attention to nonderived simple nominals and argue that the projections of verbs and nonderived simple nominals are also parallel. Specifically, we argue for the existence, in a noun phrase, of a category corresponding to complmentizier in clauses and aim at explaining the Case adjacency effects by condition (14).

Notes 1. As discussed in chapter 2, (6) is ruled in since the Canonical Structural Realization (CSR) forces the control complement to be realized as bare IP rather than CP headed by the null C. 2. We do not attempt to solve the lexical idiosyncrasy as exemplified by the contrast between (7) and (9). 3. If Svenonius (1993) is correct in claiming that the subcategorization frame of a lexical category is checked by the LF movement of the selected head to the selecting head, then (32) may be regarded as a corollary rather than a condition. 4. (32) should be distinguished from the so-called Adjunct Condition, or the Condition on Extraction Domain (CED) (Huang 1982), which rules out extraction of a phrase out of a subject, as in (i), or an adjunct, as in (ii), because extraction out of an adjunct is sometimes possible when extraction of an adjunct (or a non-argument) itself is not, as in (iii), where extraction takes place from the non-thematic complement of mannerof-speaking verbs: (i) ?*Who, did [a picture of ti] please Mary? (ii) a. ??Whoidid you read the book [after you met ti]? b. ?*What, did you meet the novelist [who wrote ti? (iii) a. Whatti did John whisper to you [that he ate ti]? b. Who, did Bill mutter [that he doesn't like f,]? (Stowell 1981:406) Although a proper formulation of the CED is outside of the scope of this book, it is valid to say that it needs to be weakened or replaced by other conditions, for the following five reasons. First, it should not rule out (iii). Second, Hornstein (1999) claims that Amovement out of an adjunct clause must be permitted in order to account for the obligatory control into adjunct clauses. Third, extraction out of a subject is possible in many

222


languages other than English (see Ogawa 1996b). Fourth, even in English, A-movement is possible out of a subject, as shown by the contrast between (iv) and (v): (iv) a. b. (v) a. b.

Johni seems [ti fond of Mary] to me. The teami seemed [ti ready for the opponent] to the coach. *Whoi does John seem [fond of ti to you? *whati opponent did the team seem [ready for ti] to the coach?

Showing that wh-movement out of a left-branch predicate is unacceptable as in (v), whereas NP-raising to [Spec, T], as assumed in (iv) under the predicate-internal subject hypothesis, is permitted, den Dikken (1995:chapter 3) claims that A-movement is not constrained by the Subject Condition. Takahashi (1997) also suggests that only A'movement is constrained by the subject condition. Fifth, den Dikken shows that headmovement is free from the Subject Condition. Given the well-formedness of (iii) and the possibility of A-movement out of an adjunct, we would like to attribute the ill-formedness of (ii) to the Minimal Link Condition (MLC), under the assumption that there is a temporal operator in the Spec of after in (iia), which blocks movement of the wh-phrase out of the adjunct clause. As for (iib), it is obvious that the relative operator who blocks the attraction. If this argument is valid, it follows that the extraction out of an adjunct will not be constrained unless the MLC is violated. In (iii), the extraction of wh-operators out of the complement of manner-ofspeaking verbs is possible because the complement CP here does not have an operator in its Spec. Essentially, as far as extraction out of an adjunct is concerned, (32) and the MLC have complementary effects in that the former constrains only head-movement out of an adjunct and the movement of an adjunct itself, whereas the latter constrains only operator movements. Since A-movements are free from both, Hornstein's claim remains valid. 5. Since his theory does not permit right adjunction, he needs to assume that both restrictive and nonrestrictive relatives must be CP at the complement of D. However, we ignore this point here since we are not adopting the LCA, and since there are sufficient motivations for his proposal about nonrestrictive relative clauses, independent of the LCA. Incidentally, Kayne claims, in accordance with the LCA, that it is IP at the complement of C, rather than CP, that moves to [Spec, D] in LF. 6. Kayne attributes the particular intonation associated with nonrestrictives to a PF property linked to an LF property of the construction. Specifically, he assumes that there is a syntactic feature that triggers the LF movement of nonrestrictive relatives, and that the same feature determines the intonational break associated with the construction. 7. Stowell (1981) was obliged to draw this conclusion since CP cannot be marked by a noun, for the following reasons: the Case Resistance Principle (CRP) blocks Case assignment to a category containing a Case-assigner (such as T in CP), the CP at the complement of N, unlike the CP at the complement of V, cannot receive Case by extraposition, and the Visibility Condition blocks B -marking to a category to which Case is not assigned. However, this theoretical deduction is currently untenable, since the CRP is not a viable constraint on Case assignment. First, there are many languages in which a tensed clausal complement to N can be introduced by a preposition. Second, given the DP hypothesis of a noun phrase, no verb could assign Case to a DP, since D is a Case assigner. 8. Pesetsky (1995:327;212f) also notes that he will discuss a variety of cases that conflict with Stowell' s theory in Pesetsky (in preparation). Regrettably, however, his manuscript has not been available to me. 9. The condition is defined as follows:

Derived Nominals and Their Satellites (i)

223

-roles can be assigned only to A-chains that are headed by a position occupied by PRO or Case. (Stowell 1981:134)

10. Valois (1991) adduces a similar proposal based on Sportiche's (1990) system of generalized Case-marking, which assumes movement to the Spec of VP and (ECM-like) Case-marking to that position from the nominalizer that selects the VP as its complement. See also Johnson (1991) for this type of Accusative Case-marking. 11.1 am not claiming that this holds universally. Celtic languages like Irish, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic are interesting in that while they are surface VSO languages, SVO order emerges when an auxiliary verb realizes tense; in the latter case, the main verb is realized as verbal noun (VN), which in turn takes a Genitive Case-marked object: (i)

Tha mi a' bualadh a' chait. be-Pres I SIM hit.VN Det.Gen cat-Gen <Scottish Gaelio 'I am striking the cat.' (Adger 1996:203)

In these languages, we can assume that T selects Nz and Nz selects VP. 12. This account is basically identical to Pesetsky's (1992:64-66), except that he has not explicitly referred to the null Caus morpheme as being affixed to the verb stem in the syntax rather than in the lexicon. I explicitly claim that they are affixed in the syntax, through verb raising. 13. Borgman (1989) points out that in Sanuma, a Yonomani language spoken in Venezuela and Brazil, the same suffix that makes a transitive verb from an inchoative verb is used to derive the double object construction meaning 'provide A with B' from the prepositional dative construction meaning 'give B to A' (see den Dikken 1995:230-231): (i) a. masita te amatosi. dirt 3sg hard "The dirt is hard.' b. masita te amatosi-ma-ko. dirt 3sg hard-CAUS-Foc 'Make the dirt hard.' (ii) a. ipa hao-no hama te niha masulu koko toto-ki kite. my father-AG visitor 3sg to beads 3DL give-Foe FUT 'My father will give beads to the visitors.' b. po a-no ulu topo niha nii te toto-ma-6. father 3sg-AG child 3pl for food 3sg give-CAUS-CUST 'The father provides food for the children.' We see in the next section that inchoative verbs are altered into transitive verbs by the addition of V1P between vP and V2P. Given this, let us assume that ma in (ib) is an overt realization of V1. Then, the use of the same morpheme in the double object construction but not in the prepositional dative construction indicates that the former but not the latter involves V1P between vP and V2P. But see den Dikken (1995:chapter 5) for a different line of attempt to assimilate the double object construction and a causative construction. 14. Chinese and Swedish, which do not have overt V-to-I movement, permit the double object construction, whereas Irish, Spanish, and German, which are obligatory overt verb raising languages, do not permit it. This asymmetry is compatible with our unified theory. Incidentally, Harley (1995) presents the generalization that the presence or

224


absence of the double object construction is correlated with the presence or absence of the possessive verb meaning 'have'. However, this generalization does not hold of French, which has the verb avoir, though it does not permit the double object construction. 15. Although Pesetsky (1995) posits the null affixal preposition G to distinguish the double object construction from the prepositional dative construction, his account of the failure of the nominalization of ditransitive verbs is essentially the same as mine. Again, a potential problem with Pesetsky's claim is concerned with rule ordering: since he does not claim that a nominalizing suffix heads a functional projection, the null causative morpheme could attach to a verb stem after the nominalizing suffix attach to it, in which case there arises no violation of condition (14). 16. The Chain Condition rules out the following sentence: (i)

?*John to Mary-Oi otagai-ga ti hihansita. John and Mary-Ace each other-Nom criticized 'Each other criticized John and Mary.'

17. The same conclusion will probably extend to all languages in which the GoalTheme order is permitted but the Goal argument has an overt manifestation of Dative Case-marker, such as Turkish, Persian, German, Dutch, and Icelandic. Then, even if these languages are obligatory overt raising languages, they do not undermine our unified theory. In fact, given this analysis, we can accommodate the fact that the indirect object in the double object construction in English cannot undergo wh-movement, whereas the same argument in Dutch can (den Dikken 1995:183): (i) a. *Who did Bill think that John gave a book? b. Wie dacht Wim dat Jan een boek gegeven had? (= (ia)) See den Dikken (1995:chapters 3 and 4) for relevant arguments. 18. Hideki Kishimoto (personal communication) suggests that although the native Japanese verbs like sizumu in (118) may generally require an overt causative morpheme when used as a causative verb, a few Sino-Japanese inchoative verbs can be causativized without an overt causative morpheme: (i) a. Hanashi-ga tenkai-sita. story-Norn unfold-Past 'The story unfolded.' b. John-ga hanashi-o tenkai-sita. John-Nom story-Acc unfold-Past 'John unfolded the story.' (ii) a. Mondai-ga kaiketu-sita. problem-Norn resolve-Past 'The problem resolved.' b. John-ga mondai-o kaiketu-sita. John-Nom peoblem-Acc resolve-Past 'John resolved the problem.' Kunio Nishiyama (personal communication) also points out that hiraku 'open' is another such example. In my data base, kettei-suru 'determine', kaisi-suru 'start', and hasei-suru


225

'derive' are also inchoative verbs that can be causativized without an overt causative morpheme. However, these verbs seem almost to exhaust the examples of Japanese verbs which can be used as either inchoative or causative/transitive verbs. Hence, we will take these examples to be exceptions. It may not be a coincidence, however, that all these verbs are accomplishment verbs in Vendler's (1967) classification. 19. Chomsky (1970:214) points out that, unlike the derived nominal growth, the gerundial nominal growing can be either unaccusative or transitive, as shown by the ambiguity of (i): (i)

the growing of tomatoes

20. Consider also the following contrast between English on the one hand and French and Dutch on the other, which may be accounted for in the same way: (i) a. They consider John (*as) a fool. b. On le considere *(comme) un flatteur. (French) 'He is considered (as) a flatterer.' c. Ze beschouwen Jan *(als) een idioot. (Dutch) They consider Jan as a fool.' (den Dikken 1995:74) 21. Under this reasoning, the construction with an overt preposition in (120b) and the one with the null preposition in (120a) must have different meanings, just as the ditransitive verbs and their prepositional dative alternants differ in their lexical semantics. 22. Freeze (1992) claims that the possessive have is a spell-out of the overt incorporation of a transitive preposition to the copula be, and Kayne (1993) extends the same analysis to the auxiliary have. The common insight that lies behind their proposals is that be and have are distinct spell-outs of one and the same verb BE. 23. As an additional piece of evidence for this conclusion, in Japanese the be-verbs that select VP, AP, or NP are morphologically realized as teiru, deiru, dearu, or da, all of which are phonologically introduced by a consonant such as t- or d-, whereas the one that selects PP is morphologically realized as im (when the subject is an animate) or aru (when the subject is an inanimate), which are both phonologically introduced by a vowel i- or a-: (i) a. John-ga hon-o yom-deiru /kai-teiru. (BE selecting VP) John-Nom book-Ace read-Prog.Pres /write-Prog.Pres 'John is reading/writing a book.' b. John-ga kenkouteki-dearu/da. (BE selecting AP) John-Nom look healthy-Cop.Pres 'John looks healthy.' c. John-ga syoubousi-dearu/da. (BE selecting NP) John-Nom fireman-Cop.Pres 'John is a fireman.' (ii) a. John-ga toukyou-ni iru. (BE selecting PP) John-Nom Tokyo-at be-Pres 'John is in Tokyo.' b. Hon-ga tukue-no-ue-ni aru. (BE selecting PP) book-Nom desk-Gen-on-Loc be-Pres 'A book is on the desk.'

226


24. This idea is essentially the reversal of Harris's (1957) proposal that what he calls the 'Modal Transformation' applies to the verb claim to form make the claim. 25. See section 3 for our proposal that Genitive Case is not an inherent Case but a structural Case. 26. But see Ogawa (1997:chapter 5), where I claim that inalienable possession nominals are stage-level predicates (which, according to Rapoport 1991, have an event place), and demonstrate that they behave on a par with event nominals in every syntactic respect. 27. See Valois (1991) for a similar proposal. 28. Some examples are given: (i) a. *the fact of my singing loudly (cf. Bland 1985) b. *the table of Ann (cf. Ann's table) (Ura 1995:124) There are of-phrases that apparently are at the complement of N: (ii) a. That shirt of plaid flannel is torn. b. A book of 50 pages is quite thin. (Anderson 1983:17) The attributive of-phrases in these examples, however, should be better analyzed as adjuncts to N' or NP. 29. Inalienable possession nominals are similar to derived nominals in another respect, that is, they can occur in the modal construction. Compare the parallelism between the examples in (i) and (ii): (i) a. b. c. (ii) a. b. c. d. e.

John took a picture of Bill. John took the part/role of the hero. John took the top of the table. John took a walk. (= John walked) John took a look at Mary. (= John looked at Mary.) John took a rest/nap on the lawn. (= John rested on the lawn.) John took legal action against the company. John took care of Mary. (= John cared for Mary.)

As for the construction in (iia-e), it is quite similar to the modal construction as illustrated by make the claim, have an idea, and so on, in that take in these examples does not mean reach out for something and hold it, which is a typical meaning of the verb take that belongs to the lexical category V. Rather, it only plays the role of verbalizing the noun in its complement, as is clear from the fact that take a look, take a rest, and take care are equivalent to such single verbs as look, rest, and care, respectively. Then, the same argument we have made for the modal construction of the make the claim type should be applicable. That is, it is reasonable to propose that the nouns walk, look, rest, and so on in (ii) head an NP at the complement of v and raise and adjoin to the take that heads vP at LF. Given the fact that take in (i) does not rigidly keep its lexical meaning, the same analysis may be applicable to these examples as well. 30. There are some apparent counterexamples to this analysis, which are instantiated by the following examples:


227

(i) a. the (event's) description by John (Valois 1991:80) b. the poem's translation by John (Anderson 1979:44) c. a publication by The MIT Press (Grimshaw 1990:88) However, the head nouns in (ia-b) can be analyzed as RN rather than SEN since the expressions refer to concrete objects formed as a result of the action of describing, translating, and publishing. The presence of the indefinite article provides another support for the view that the N in (ic) is RN. (ia-c) are well-formed for the same reason as (iia-b): (ii) a. a book by Chomsky b. a play by Shakespeare On the other hand, the Ns in (178b-d) cannot be analyzed as RN, since we cannot imagine a concrete object which has been formed as a result of destructing, defeating, and the book's publication (the book's publication cannot have the identical reference as the book, due to the i-within-i condition). Hence, (178b-d) are ruled out, because SENs cannot be modified by a by-phrase. 31. In Keyser and Roeper's (1984) theory, middle verb formation is quite similar to passivization, except for the absence of an additional morpheme on the verb stem in the former. We also take this morphological difference to be closely related to another difference between them. See section 6.2.4. 32. Needless to say, the semantics of the middle constructions and the noun phrases headed by SENs are not identical, given the presence of an abstract generic operator in the former but not in the latter. This difference does not, however, undermine our theory, since we do not claim a semantic parallelism between verbal and nominal projections; we are only claiming morphosyntactic parallelism between verbal and nominal projections. 33. The latter approach implies that middle verbs are lexically nondistinct from the corresponding transitive verbs, since they differ only in the lexical contents of the functional categories that select them. 34. Our unified theory of verbal and nominal projections does not predict that verb raising applies in vP and NzP in a parallel fashion, since it is fully possible that the Nz that attracts a zero-derived verb has a strong V-feature, whereas the v that attracts a zeroderived verb has a weak V-feature. In other words, our theory is not undermined even if a middle sentence does not involve overt V-to-v movement. However, if the middle construction really involves overt verb raising that is otherwise (almost) unattested in English, the fact will be itself interesting since the middle verbs, then, turn out to be linked to SENs more tightly than our theory predicts. See Ogawa (1997:chapter 6) for arguments along these lines. 35. The fact that CENs and SENs cannot be pluralized does not support the syntactic nominalization hypothesis, however. It may be the case that nouns referring to events cannot be pluralized because they are not countable. 36. Larson (1988) proposes the reanalysis of V as V°, in order to analyze Heavy NP Shift without assuming rightward movement. 37. The examples in (205b-e) are cited from Kenkyusha's Dictionary of Contemporary English Expressions, ed. by Yukio Saegusa, Kenkyusha Syuppan, Tokyo. 38. Grimshaw (1990) notes in the text that 'the -ing nominal... is unambiguously a complex event nominal with an argument structure.' This statement shold be false. 39. The ill-formedness of (220b) cannot be attributed to the Specificity Condition which rules out extraction out of a specific DP, as in (i), since (221) is well-formed:

228 (i)

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections * Which man did you see John's picture of?

40. See also Ouhalla (1991) for the same proposal. 41. Note in this context that the verbal complementizer toiu is never used in the complement of a finite verb in Japanese: (i)

itta. Mary-ga [John-ga asita kuru to/*toiu] Mary-Nom John-Norn tomorrow come CompN/*CompV said 'Mary said (that) John will come tomorrow.'

I have no explanation for this fact. As Hideki Kishimoto (personal communication) reports to me, the Bansyuu dialect of Japanese uses the overt complementizer yuute instead of to in the complement of a verb. This form is clearly based on the verb of saying, which is pronounced in this dialect as yuu. This asymmetry between the standard Japanese (i) and the Bansyuu dialect may be related to the fact that, unlike the standard Japanese, the Bansyuu dialect permits the null C in a complement clause. 42. Thus, both (ia) and (ib) are ill-formed: (i) a. * John's claim of [that Bill is guilty] b. *John's claim of [Bill is guilty] 43. If we assume that the V-feature to D is interpretable, no problem would arise even if it is not checked against any V-feature. 44. The appositive of-phrases here are perhaps not at the complement of the nouns but are adjoined to the right of their projection. 45. Not all prenominal Genitive NPs are possible in this configuration. First, those in an NP headed by an CEN cannot be an appositive modifier of it: (i) a. *The destruction of the city was John's. b. *The examination of the students was John's.

(Lebeaux 1986:246)

Second, certain event-denoting nominals resist this configuration: (ii) a. *That concert was Wednesday's. b. *That weather is that year's. (Anderson 1983:11) We are not concerned with the existence of these ill-formed examples, since the movement to [Spec, D] is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the appositive modifier reading, and various semantic factors are also relevant for the legitimacy of this configuration. Readers are referred to Anderson (1983), Lebeaux (1986), and Grimshaw (1990) for relevant arguments. 46. The (slightly marginal) possibility of the complementizer drop in the complement of the SENs in (ia-b) supports this assumption: (i) a. [John-ga sinsyousya dearu ?(toiu)] nintei-o site kudasai. John-Nom handicapped be Comp recognition-Ace do-INF please '(Lit.) Please do the recognition that John is a handicapped person.'


229

b. [kikenna kuni-ni iru ?(toiu)] isiki-o motte kudasai. dangerous country-Dat be-Pres Comp realization-Ace have please '(Lit.) Please have the realization that you are in a dangerous country.' 47. Suppose that in Japanese there is a VN that must always have a V-feature, and that it must move to Nz overtly. In this case, the uninterpretable V-feature of the head of its sentential complement cannot be checked against VN for the same reasons that it cannot be checked against the V that moves to Nz in English. Then, we predict that such a VN cannot select not only the null complementizer but also the verbal complementizer. I know one example that bears out this prediction: (i) a. ??[Asahara-ga yuuzai dearu toiu] syoumei-ni-wa zikan-ga kakaru. Asahara-Nom guilty is Comp proof-Dat-Top time-Nom take 'In order to prove that Asahara is guilty, we need much time.' b. *[Asahara-ga yuuzai dearu] syoumei-ni-wa zikan-ga kakaru. Incidentally, the VN cannot select the nominal complementizer, either, even if the CP is introduced by the Case-marker no: (ii)

???[Asahara-ga yuuzai dearu to]-no syoumei-ni-wa zikan-ga kakaru.

We can attribute the ill-formedness of (ii) to the c-selectional requirement on the VN in our system (cf. (130a-b)), whereas it is totally unexpected under a Stowell/Grimshaw-type theory, which takes Case-marking to be the necessary and sufficient condition for a sentential complement to N to be interpreted as its internal argument. 48. The fact that nominal and verbal gerunds correspond to CENs and SENs, respectively (cf. (213a-b)), remains to be explained. 49. We cannot expect the ill-formedness of the following example presented by Chomsky (1986a:196), which seems to be structurally identical to (256a): (i)

* John's seeming to be intelligent

4

The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases

4.1 Introduction In chapter 3, I defended the hypothesis that noun phrases based on a derived nominal are headed by the functional category Nominalizer (Nz), which is the nominal counterpart of the light verb v. In Ogawa (1996e, 1997), I argued for the parallelism between T(ense) and D(eterminer) in terms of definiteness.'Our project naturally leads us to explore the possibility that noun phrases have a functional category corresponding to the C(omplementizer) in clauses. In fact, many linguists, including Abney (1987), who has proposed the DP Hypothesis, argue that D is not the only functional category in a noun phrase. Thus, Szabolcsi (1983) proposes that a noun phrase has a second functional projection corresponding to the C in a clause, and Valois (1991) and Cinque (1995) argue that there is another functional projection between D and N, which we call Number Phrase (NumP) (see also Ritter 1991 for NumP above DP). The central aim of this chapter is to show that both these proposals are correct. Specifically, I propose that noun phrases headed by event nominals and common nouns actually have the four-story structures as in (1b-c), respectively. Given these, both types of noun phrases turn out to be parallel to clauses in their hierarchical structures, where X corresponds to C, D corresponds to T, Num and Nz corresponds to v, and N corresponds to V: (1) a.

[CP C [TP T [VP DP

[v

v [VP V (DP) ]].]]] 230

(V = verb)

The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases b. c.

231

[ X P X[ D P D[ N z P DP[ N Nz[ V P V(of DP)]]]]] (N = derived nominal) [xpX[ D P D[ N u m P Num[ N P N(PP)]]]]] (N = underived nominal)

We henceforth call the XP 'Komplementizer Phrase', or simply KP, and the hypothesis to be developed here the 'KP Hypothesis', as opposed to Abney's (1987)'DP Hypothesis'.2 Our second proposal is that among the three phi-features, number, person, and gender, Num and v have number features, D and T have person features, and C and K have gender features. This is what we claim to be another parallelism between verbal and nominal projections. This proposal accounts for an asymmetry in agreement between pronominals and nonpronominals in Standard Arabic and an asymmetry between subject agreement and object agreement in French. Our third proposal is that K is the locus of all Case particles. Let us also propose that, just like the null C, the null K is universally an inflectional affix, and therefore it is subject to the condition on inflectional affixes we have assumed throughout this book. Given the KP Hypothesis and the third and fourth proposals, we attain a new explanation of the core cases of the so-called Case adjacency effects in English and the fact that these effects appear to be absent in Romance languages and languages with the particle system of Case. This chapter is organized as follows: in section 2, we provide five pieces of evidence for the KP Hypothesis, which come from A'-movement in noun phrases, various agreement facts, and the distribution of Case particles, pronouns, and determiners in languages including English, Japanese, Standard Arabic, Hungarian, and Modern Hebrew. In section 3, we review previous accounts of the Case adjacency effects in English and their absence in Romance languages and then provide a new account of them based on the condition on inflectional affixes and the two null hypotheses (i.e., the KP Hypothesis and the assumption that the null K is an inflectional affix). Section 4 is a conclusion.

4.2 The KP Hypothesis In this section, we provide five arguments for postulating KP in noun phrases, one of which has already been suggested in the literature. 4.2.1 A'-movement in NP and Case Alternation in Hungarian Szabolcsi (1983) argues, on the basis of Hungarian data, that there are at least two functional projections in a noun phrase, one corresponding to Infl and the other to Complementizer. Consider, first, the following pair: (2) a. b.

alud-tMariMary-Nom sleep-Past-3sg 'Mary slept.' a Mari- vendeg-e-e -


232

the Mary-Nom guest-Poss-3sg 'Mary's guest' Example (2a) is a sentence with a finite verb which agrees with its subject in person and number. In our terms, Mari is assumed to be in the Spec of TP. In parallel with (2a), Mari in (2b) also agrees with the head N in person and number. This fact suggests that Mari in (2b) is also in the Spec of some functional category in noun phrase. Note that Mari follows the overt determiner, which is naturally assumed to be a realization of a functional head. Then, we can conclude that there are at least two functional projections in a noun phrase in Hungarian. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that the pre-D position in Hungarian can be the landing site of wh -movement. Note first that the pre-D position can also be filled by a non-wh possessor like Mari, as in (3). In this case, the possessor is assigned Dative Case, standing in contrast with (1 b), in which the possessor is marked for Nominative Case: (3) Mari-nak a vendeg-eMary-Dat the guest-Poss-3sg The contrast between (4a) and (4b) suggests that when the possessor is a whphrase, it must always move to the pre-D position to be assigned Dative Case: (4) a. b.

*a kivendeg-ethe who-Nom guest-Poss-3sg 'whose guest' ki-nek a vendeg-ewho-Dat the guest-Poss-3sg

On the basis of these data, Szabolcsi claims that the Determiner corresponds to the Complementizer in clauses and the predeterminer position to the Spec of CP and that the overt subject position in Hungarian noun phrases is the Spec of the nominal counterpart of TP. On our assumptions, the overt determiner fills the head of KP, and the nominal counterpart of TP is DP. 4.2.2 The Co-occurrence of Determiners and Possessors In this subsection, we demonstrate that the fact that an overt determiner and a possessor DP can co-occur in a single noun phrase provides us with another piece of evidence for the KP Hypothesis. Examples from some languages are given here (cf. also (2b)): (5) a.

la mia secretaria the my secretary 'my secretary' (Italian; Longobardi 1994)

The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases b.

c.

al meu portret mare the my picture big 'my big picture' huset mitt house-the my 'my house'

233

(Romanian; Grosu 1988)

(Norwegian; Taraldsen 1990)

We claim that these examples have the structures in (6a-c), where N has undergone head-movement to Num in (6a), to D in (6b), and to K in (6c): (6) a. [KP, K (il) [DP mia [ D -D [NmnP N+Num (secretaria) [NP tN ]]]]] (= (5a)) b. [KP K (al) [DP meu [D.N+Num+D (portret) [NumP mare [tNum [NP tN ]]]]] (= (5b)) c. [kP N+Num+D+K (huset) [DP mitt [D. tD [NumP tNum [NP tN ]]]]] (= (5c)) Let us start our discussion by considering the presence of overt N-raising in these examples. Consider, first, the N-to-Num movement in (6a). This is justified by particular relative orderings of the different classes of adjectives. As Hetzron (1978) observes, there is a relative ordering of the different classes of adjectives which is by and large the same across languages. Consider the following facts in English and German, which he calls A(djective)N(oun) languages: (7)

AN order: a. English: b. German:

Evaluating beautiful schoener

Size big grosser

Color red roter

N ball Ball

(7) indicates that in AN languages, evaluating (or quality) APs precede size APs, which precede shape APs, which precede color (and nationality or provenance) APs. On the basis of this observation by Hetzron, Cinque (1995) argues that the following fact suggests that in Romance languages like French and Italian, which Hetzron calls ANA languages, N has been raised to some functional head position between D and N: (8)

ANA order: Evaluating a. French: un joli b. Italian: una bella a pretty

Size gros grande big

N ballon palla ball

Color rouge rossa red

In these languages, N appears between size APs and color APs. Cinque argues that this fact is accounted for by assigning (8a) the following structure, in which each overt AP appears in the Spec of a relevant lexical projection AP whose head is null, and N has undergone head-movement through the head of the color AP indicates 'phonologically null'):


234 (9)

[DP

D (im) [.„ Evaluating AP [A A ( ) [AP Size AP [A A ( ) [YP N+A ( )+Y ( ) [AP Color AP [A. tA [NP ?N ]]]]]]]]]

Although Cinque assumes that A takes AP, YP, or NP in its complement, this assumption is dispensable if we admit that APs are in a Spec or adjoined position of NP or NumP.3 Suppose that YP in (9) is NumP and that the color APs are adjoined to NP, the size APs are in the Spec of NumP, and the evaluating APs are adjoined to NumP, as in (10): (10)

[KP K [Dp D [Nump Evaluating AP [NmnP Size AP [ Num Num [NP Color AP [NP N ]]]]]]]

Then, in order to derive the ANA order in (8), the N must be raised to Num, but no higher. Even in this modified structure, we can maintain Cinque's conclusion that there is another functional projection between D and N and that the three types of adjectives must be linearized rigidly in this order (see note 3 for arguments against the analysis in (9)).4 Now, with the structure in (10) presupposed, consider a Romanian example (5b): (5) b.

al meu portret mare the my picture big

(Romanian)

Here, N appears between a possessor DP and a size AP. Since the size AP is in the Spec of NumP, the N which precedes it must be raised to D, as shown in (6b). The possessor that precedes the N must be in the Spec of DP. The overt determiner preceding the possessor must occupy the head of a higher functional head position selecting DP, that is, K. Hence, the KP Hypothesis is justified at least in Romanian. An Italian example (5a) and a Norwegian example (5c) do not lead us to the same conclusion as convincingly as the Romanian example (5b): (5) a. c.

la mia secretaria the my secretary huset mitt house-the my

(Italian) (Norwegian)

Whether we can obtain the same conclusion depends on the position of the overt possessors, mia in (5a) and mitt in (5c). Suppose, for example, that it is in the Spec of NP in (5c). Then, the relative order of the possessor and the N can be derived if N is raised to the functional head selecting the NP. The functional head need not be KP. In (5a), since the N has been raised to Num, the overt possessor which precedes the N cannot be in the Spec of NP. However, if it can be in the Spec of NumP, the overt determiner can be in D, which takes NumP in its complement, and hence KP is still unnecessary.5


235

However, it has often been argued that the possessor of a common noun is 9 -marked not by N but by D (Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992, Kikuchi 1994, Ura 1995). More accurately, they argue that, although the possessor of an inalienable possession (IAP) nominal is assigned a role by N, the possessor of a simple nominal is assigned a role by D, as shown in (11): (11) a. b.

[DP D [NP John's [N. N (hand/eye/arm) ]]] (IAP nominals) [DP John's [ D -D [ N P N (novel/car/house)]]] (simple nominals)

Their arguments are based on the following fact: while the relation between the IAP nominals and John in (lla) is always a possessor-possessee relation, the relation between the simple nominals and John in (l1b) is not determined uniquely. Thus, in 'John's novel', John can be the writer, owner, introducer, character, or whatever is allowed by pragmatics, of the novel. This suggests that, unlike IAP nominals, simple nominals do not assign a particular 9 -role to the possessor (Safir 1987). The following contrast leads us to the same conclusion: (12) a. b. (13) a. b.

the head of John the tail of a pig *the table of Ann *the collar of a dog

(Jespersen 1949)

Ura (1995) argues that this asymmetry is accounted for if we assume that IAP nominals do, but simple nominals do not, assign a 8 -role to their complement position and that, while of-NP is a realization of the structural Genitive Case assigned by N, John's in John's book is a realization of the inherent Case assigned by D (see Chomsky 1986a for a different view). Returning to (5a) and (5c), we find that the head nouns in these examples are simple nominals. Then, the possessors of these nouns must originate in the Spec of DP, receiving a 9 -role from D.6 This means that the determiners preceding the possessors must be in K. Hence, the KP Hypothesis is justified in Italian and Norwegian, as well as in Hungarian and Romanian. Given this conclusion, one might wonder why the corresponding English examples, such as the following, are ill-formed: (14)

*the his/John's book

If the overt determiner is in K and the possessor is in the Spec of DP, this example should be ruled in. Facing this problem, I claim that in English, the overt determiner is in D rather than in K (and whether or not there is an overt determiner in D, K is a null affix, just like C; see section 3 for discussion). The reason for this is that English determiners are scmantically contentful and always denote definiteness (or specificity). It has generally been assumed that D is the locus of the definiteness (or specificity) and the possessors are in the Spec of DP. Hence, the relative order in (14) is never allowed.7


236

On this reasoning, the determiners that co-occur with a possessor in the languages noted cannot have a semantic content. In accordance with this conclusion, Gueron (1985) proposes that determiners in French are expletives. Arguments for this (cf. also Valois 1991, Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992, Longobardi 1994) are based mainly on the fact that, in the environments where English disallows a definite determiner, these languages allow or even require one and that such a noun phrase is interpreted existentially, despite the existence of a definite determiner. Consider, for example, the following contrasts between English on the one hand and French and Italian on the other: (15) a. b. (16) a. b. (17) a. b. (18) a. b.

Jeles a vu la photo de tous les enfants. 'Jeles saw a picture of every child.' (French; Valois 1991:27) I saw the picture of every movie star in Hollywood. (ibid.:34) Pierre a les cheveux blanc. (French; Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992:638) John has (*the) white hair. Amo *(la) dolce Francia. I-love the sweet France I love (*the) sweet France. (Italian; Longobardi 1994:630) (II) Gianni mi ha telefonato. the Gianni me has called-up *The Gianni called me up. (Italian; ibid.:651)

(15) shows that, although in English the universal quantifier inside an NP introduced by a definite article cannot take take scope over the NP, the French universal quantifier in the same position can. Thus, one interpretation of (15a) is that for each child there is a picture such that Jeles saw it (Valois 1991:27). No such interpretation exists in (15b). This means that the 'definite article' in French does not imply definiteness. (16) shows that, while in English the inalienable object NP whose antecedent is in the subject position cannot be introduced by a definite article, the same object NP in French is. (17) and (18) suggest that, while certain proper names in English do not co-occur with an overt determiner, those in Italian allow or even require it. Longobardi (1994) argues that the determiner is optional in (18a), since there is an option that moves the head N to the empty D position. In this analysis, the determiner is obligatory in (17a), since the precedence of an adjective above the proper name indicates that the N-movement has not taken place here, and an empty D position is not allowed in Italian. These asymmetries between English and Romance languages suggest that the definite articles in Englishalways have the meaning of definiteness (or specificity), whereas those in French and Italian can be used as expletives without semantic content. Let us propose that the definite articles that originate in K do not have semantic content, whereas those which originate in D denotes definiteness or specificity (we do not reject the possibility that it raises to K if K has a feature to attract it; see section 3).8 If a determiner in English must originate in D, (14) is ruled out because the occurrence of a determiner in D is incompatible with a possessive Genitive DP in its Spec (cf. note 7):

The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases (19)

237

*[KP D (the) +K [DP John's/his [D. tD ... ]]]

4.2.3 Pronominal Shift In this subsection, we claim that the head of KP is the locus of pronominals in English (perhaps, universally). More specifically, we argue that they are basegenerated in N and raised to K successive cyclically. This constitutes a third argument for the KP Hypothesis. We also suggest taht there can be another functional category QP between KP and DP and that QP exists only when a certain class of universal quantifier takes scope over DP. The argument for this claim is based on the distribution of floating quantifiers (FQs). As noted in Postal (1974) and Maling (1976), English allows subject-oriented FQs, but not object-oriented ones. The following contrast illustrates this point: (20) a. b.

The men will all come (tomorrow). *I called the men all (yesterday). (Maling 1976)

Doetjes (1992) proposes an adverbial analysis of FQs, according to which FQs are adjoined to VP in the base component and must bind a variable, and if the antecedent NP of a FQ moves, its trace may function as a variable for the FQ. Given this hypothesis, we can rule in (20a) if we assume the predicate-internal subject hypothesis (Kuroda 1988, Fukui 1986, Kitagawa 1986, among many others), according to which all in (20a) can bind the trace of the subject NP in VP as a variable. On the other hand, we can rule out (20b) if we assume, following Chomsky (1993; 1995), that the direct object here does not undergo overt shift (see Ogawa 1996b for more detailed arguments). Now, what concerns us here is the fact that in contrast to (20b), a pronominal object can be the antecedent of an object-oriented FQ in the environments where a nonpronominal object cannot. The following contrast illustrates the relevant asymmetry: (21) a. *I saw the men all yesterday. b. I saw them all yesterday. (Maling 1976:709) The contrast between pronominals and nonpronominals is also observed in a subject position, when the main verb is a copula: (22) a. *The soldiers all are happy. b. They all are happy. (Postal 1974:113)

238


Suppose that (22a) is ill-formed since the finite copula is raised up to T and the FQ cannot adjoin to T'. Then, we would rule out (22b) for the same reason as (22a) if the pronoun alone were raised from inside VP to the Spec of TP. On the other hand, if we assume that the pronoun-quantifier sequence they all forms a constituent, its well-formedness can be accounted for (= (23b)): (23) a. *[TP [KP the men]i [r all [T. V+T (are) [VP t( [v. tv happy ]]]]] b. [TP[KP they all]i [T V+T (are) [VP t, [v. tv happy ]]] If (23b) is the correct analysis of (22b), we have to determine the positions of the pronoun, the determiner, and the universal quantifier (UQ) in a single KP. In so doing, it is useful to look at the following contrasts, which are uniform across English, Italian, French, Hebrew (Shlonsky 1991), and Greek (Riemsdijk 1998): (24) a. b. c. d. e.

all the men/*the all men (English) tutti i musei/*i tutti musei 'all the museum' (Italian) tous les invites/*les tous invites 'all the guests' (French) ?et kol ha-banot/*?et ha-kol banot 'Ace all the-girls' (Hebrew) ola ta pedhia/*ta ola pedhia 'all the children' (Greek)

Examples (24a) to (24e) show that, while the order is wellformed, the order is ill-formed in all these languages. Since the definite article is in D, the rigid order in (24a-e) suggests that the UQ must be attached to position higher than D. In (24d), however, the UQ follows a Case particle, which we claim to be in K (see section 2.4). Then, the UQ must be basegenerated in a position lower than K'. Hence, we propose that the UQ originates in the head of QP, which exists between DP and KP, as in (25a): (25)

[KP K ( )) [QP Q (all) [DP D (the) [Nump Num ( ) NP (soldiers) ]]]]

Although we have suggested that definite articles in French and Italian originate in K when they are expletives, the definite articles in (24b-e) clearly denote definiteness, and hence they should be generated in D. Then, in order to derive the DET-UQ-N order, we have to move the determiner in D to K across the UQ in the head of QP. However, such a movement violates the MLC, if it is triggered by the strong N-feature of K, under the assumption that both D and Q have an Nfeature. Hence, the order cannot be generated. We have seen that when the universal quantifier all is in a noun phrase and takes scope over DP, there is a functional projection called QP between KP and DP and the QP is headed by all. Now, with the structure in (25) presupposed, let us consider the contrast in (26):

The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases (26) a. b. c.

they all/*all they vous tous 'you all'/*tous vous noi tutti 'we all'/*tutti noi

239

(French) (Italian)

Examples (26a) to (26c) show that in contrast to the definite articles, the pronominals must always precede the UQ. Now, suppose that the pronoun is base-generated in the head of NP. Then, in order to make the pronoun precede the UQ, we have to move the pronoun to Q or K. Suppose that it moves to Q, triggered by a strong feature of Q. Then, we predict that the pronoun does not move when there is no projection QP, that is, there is no UQ that appears in the head of QP. However, the following contrast shows that the pronominal shift occurs even without any UQ (cf. also Postal 1969): (27) a. b. c.

We rich are becoming even richer. *The rich we are becoming even richer. (Longobardi 1994:635-636) The rich men are becoming even richer.

Hence, it must be the case that the final landing site of the pronominal shift is not Q. Then, we have to conclude that the pronominal shift is a movement to K. If we assume that N moves to K by successive cyclic incorporation, the structures of (26a) and (27a) are schematized as in (28a-b), respectively:9 (28) a. b.

[KP N(they)+Num+D+Q(all)+K ( ) [QP tQ [DP tD [Nump tNum [NP [KP N(we)+Num+D+K ( ) [DP tD [Nump rich [ Nunp tNum [NP tN]]]]]

If pronominals are raised to K in overt syntax, what triggers this movement? Given the fact that the overt determiner in D in (25) cannot move to K, one might attribute the pronominal shift to its proclitic nature, which is not shared by the determiner. Thus, in the particle construction, the pronominal, unlike the nonpronominal NP, must occur between the verb and the particle: (29) a. b.

John looked the information up / up the information. John looked it up /*up it.

However, we cannot equate the paradigms in (26) and (27) with those in (29a-b), since the contrast between (30a) and (30b) shows that the pronominal shift in (28) is obligatory in environments where the particle shift is only optional: (30) a. b.

I looked up them all / them all up. *I looked up all them /*all them up.

This contrast strongly suggests that the 'pronominal shift in KP' needs to be distinguished from the movement of pronouns involved in the particle construe-


240

lions in (29), which in turn implies that the pronominal shift in KP is not triggered by its proclitic nature. In the next subsection, assuming that the pronoun is base-generated in N and moved to K successive cyclically, we explore the possibility that the pronominal shift is triggered by the phi-features located in Num, D, and K. 4.2.4 Distribution of Phi-features Phi-features are usually composed of three features, gender, person, and number. In this subsection, we claim that these three phi-features are distributed over K, D, and Num, respectively. We also assume, in the spirit of Chomsky (1995:277), that the lexical head N has gender feature as its intrinsic feature and number and person features as its optional features (person feature is 'inactive' when N is nonpronominal)10and that all the three phi-features of N are interpretable. On the other hand, we assume that the phi-features of K, D, and Num are uninterpretable and hence must be checked against the raised N (or another element outside of the noun phrase) by head-head relation either in overt syntax or in LF. Given these proposals and assumptions, the projections of a pronominal and a nonpronominal N are schematized as in (31a-b), respectively, where in D means that the person feature is 'inactive' and need not be checked:11 (31) a. b.

[KP, K [DP D [NumP Num [NP> N ]]]]] (N = pronominal) [KP K [DP D [NumP Num [NP N ]]]]] (N = nonpronominal)

Given this proposal, it is possible to argue that the pronominal shift takes place in order to check the phi-features of the pronouns against those of the nominal functional heads. Suppose that when the N head is a pronoun, as in (31 a), the gender feature of K, the person feature of D, and the number features of Num are all strong universally. Then, the pronoun moves obligatorily in overt syntax. Moreover, this movement must be successive cyclic and the pronoun checks off the phi-features of all the three functional heads. This accounts for the fact that, unlike nonpronominals, pronominals inflect for all the three phi-features in all the languages that have a morphological agreement system. Since the pronoun is N, its own phi-features are all interpretable and hence remain even after checking; hence, they can be checked against V, v, and/or T later. A paradigm relevant in this context is given here: (32) a. b. c. d. e.

Exactly what are you looking for? What exactly did he die of? They were doing exactly the opposite to what I had told them. *They were doing the exactly opposite to what I had told them. the exact time of departure


241

The facts in (32c) and (32e) show that, while the same type of emphatic modifiers that add force to an expression (e.g. exact(ly), precise(ly), concise(ly)) are used adverbially when they modify the definite article/determiners, they are used adjectivally when they modify Ns. This asymmetry itself is intriguing and needs an explanation (cf. chapter 3, section 2.2). Suppose, however, that this is a fact about English and that the adverbs in question are adjoined to DP. Then, the contrast between (32b) and (32d) shows that, while the definite article cannot move to K across the adverbs, the interrogative pronouns can. This contrast might show that wh-pronouns, because they are pronominal, are attracted to K by the strong gender feature optionally asssigned to K. In what follows, we show that the distribution of phi-features as claimed in (31), in conjunction with the claim that pronominals move to K, accounts for the fact that in Standard Arabic, the nonpronominal subject agrees with the verb only in gender, although the pronominal subject agrees with the verb in all the three phi-features. Assuming that in parallel to (31), each of the lexical and functional categories in clauses has a particular phi-feature, we also explain the fact that in French the subject agreement is agreement in person and number, whereas the object agreement is agreement in number and gender. As far as these arguments are verified, the KP Hypothesis will receive the fourth piece of evidence. 4.2.4.1 Pronominals vs. Nonpronominals in Arabic Let us start our discussion by noting an asymmetry between pronominals and nonpronomonals with respect to agreement with the finite verb in Standard Arabic (henceforth, SA). In SA, both the VSO order and the SVO order are permitted. With this in mind, consider first (33a-b): (33) a. ja:?-a/*ja:?-u: l-?awla:d-u came-masc./came-3pl.masc. the-boys-Nom 'The boys came.' (Fassi Fehri 1989:97-98) b. l-?awla:d-u ja:?-u:/*ja:?-a the-boys-Nom came-3pl.masc./came-masc. When the subject is nonpronominal and postverbal, the verb agrees with it only in gender, as shown by the lack of number and person agreements in (33a) (ja: ?-a is a default third person singular form including only gender agreement; ja: ?-at is used when the subject is feminine). When the subject is preverbal, as in (33b), the verb agrees with it in gender, person, and number. Next, consider (34): (34) a. ja:?-u:/*ja:?a hum came-3pl.masc/*came-masc they 'They came.' (Fassi Fehri 1989:101)


242 b.

?antum ji?-tum/*ja:?-u: you.pl.masc. came-2pl.masc/*came-3pl.masc. 'You came.' (ibid.:99)

(34) shows that unlike the nonpronominals in (33), the pronominals in SA must agree with the verb in gender, person and number, whether they are preverbal or postverbal. Fassi Fehri interprets this asymmetry as follows: (a) SA is an unambiguously VSO language and the preverbal subject is not a subject but a topic or focus anaphorically related to an internal pronominal subject incorporated to the verb; (b) since SA is a null subject language, the pronominal subject can be null. He suggests that the following facts motivate this view: (35) a. b.

r-rija:l-u ntaqad-tu-hum the men criticized-I-them The men, I criticized them.' ?ayy-u rija:l-in ntaqad-ta-hum? which-Nom men-Gen criticized-you-them 'Which men did you criticize?'

In (35a), the object occurs in a preverbal position and the clitic pronoun to which the preverbal object is anaphorically related is overtly realized postverbally. He argues that, if we replace the preverbal object and the postverbal pronoun in (35a) by a preverbal subject and a null pronoun, respectively, we have (33b). In (35b), the topic is the object, and nevertheless it receives Nominative Case, which should not inherit the Case of the internal source but has been assigned by an external governor. If there is such an external governor, it is reasonable to analyze the preverbal subject in (33b) as originating in this position and functioning as a topic which is linked to a null pronoun in a postverbal position. In this analysis, we can simplify the agreement system in SA as follows: (36)

The pronominals agree with the verb in gender, person and number, whereas the nonpronominals agree with the verb only in gender.

Before explaining this generalization in SA, let us look at an asymmetry in French between subject and object agreements. 4.2.4.2 Subject vs. Object Agreements in French French is a language that has both subject-finite verb agreement (or subject agreement) and object-participial agreement (or object agreement). While the subject agreement takes place between a subject raised to the Spec of TP and the verb raised to (or originating in) T, the object agreement takes place between the thematic object raised to the subject position (by passivization or ergativization)


243

and the past participle. They are both agreements with respect to phi-features. However, there exists an asymmetry between them: the former is an agreement in person and number, excluding gender, whereas the latter is an agreement in number and gender, excluding person. (37) and (38) demonstrate the paradigms of subject agreement and object agreement, respectively: (37) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Je aime mes parents. Tu aimes les parents. I1 aime ses parents. Elle aime ses parents. Nous aimons nos parents. Vous aimez vos parents. Ils aiment leurs parents. Elles aiment leurs parents.

'I love my parents.' 'You love your parents.' 'He loves his parents.' 'She loves her parents.' 'We love our parents.' 'You (pl.) love your parents.' 'They love their parents.' 'They (fern.) love their parents.'

As shown by (37c-d) and (37g-h), the difference between the masculine pronominals and the feminine pronominals does not affect the form of the finite verb, which shows that French subject agreement is sensitive to the person and number, but not gender, of the subject. Consider, next, (38): (38) a. Je suis arrive(e) a la gare. 'I have arrived at the station.' b. Tu es arrive(e) a la gare. 'You have arrived at the station.' c. I1 est arrive a la gare. 'He has arrived at the station.' d. Elle est arrivee a la gare. 'She has arrived at the station.' e. Nous sommes arrive(e)s a la gare. 'We have arrived at the station.' f. Vous etes arrive(e)s a la gare. 'You have arrived at the station.' g. Us sont arrives a la gare. 'They (masc.) have arrived at the station.' h. Elles sont arrivees a la gare. 'They (fem.) have arrived at the station.' (38) shows object agreement between the subject of an unaccusative verb arriver and the past participle. (38c-d) and (38g-h) indicate that the agreement is sensitive to gender feature. (38a-d) compared with (38e-h) indicate that it is sensitive to number feature. However, there is no person agreement. In short, the object agreement is sensitive only to the number and gender, but not person, of the object. The generalization to be explained is stated as follows: (39)

The subject agrees with the finite verb in person and number, whereas the object agrees with the past participle in number and gender, whether the subject/object is pronominal or nonpronominal.

4.2.4.3 An Explanation of the Generalizations We have assumed in (31) that each nominal category in a noun phrase, whether lexical or functional, has a particular phi-feature. Now, let us propose a parallel

244


distribution of phi-features for verbal categories. Suppose that each verbal category, whether lexical or functional, has a particular (uninterpretable) phifeature as shown in (40) (T has feature, since there is no reason to believe main verbs, as opposed to auxiliary do, to be pronominal):12 (3 1) b. [KP K [DP D [Nump Num [NP N ]]]]] (40) [cp C [TP T [rpv [vp V ]]]]]

(31b) and (40) are parallel with respect to featural organization, since both K and C have a uninterpretable gender feature, both D and T have an uninterpretable person feature, both Num and v have an uninterpretable number feature, and both N and V have gender and number features (the only differences being that while all the phi-features of V are uninterpretable, those of N are all interpretable, a distinction which seem to be indispensable, given that phi-features identify the semantic property of nouns rather than verbs). With these parallel featural organizations presupposed, let us consider the French generalization (39). Note first that since the V in French always raises to v or a higher functional category in overt syntax (cf. chapter 2), object agreement should always take place in the following configuration:

Here, KP is located in the checking domain of both v and (V, tv), a chain headed by V. Then, the KP must morphologically agree with both v and V (i.e., past participle). The fact that the object agreement is agreement in number and gender then follows from our assumption that the V has only gender and number features and that v has only number features: neither V nor v has person feature in (40). Hence, object agreement must be agreement in number and gender. Consider, next, the subject agreement. Subject agreement is agreement that takes place in the checking domain of T, and the finite verb has been overtly raised to T through v in French. Then, the relevant configuration of subject agreement is as follows:


245

Suppose, here, that in French, whenever a checking configuration is established, only the head X and another head Y adjoined to X can enter into a checking relation with the element occupying [Spec, X] (this restriction may be languageparticular). This means that, in (42), the subject KP can enter into a checking relation with T and v but not with V. Given the natural assumption that only the morphological features that have actually been checked against a KP can be copied from the KP onto the V, it follows that only number and person morphemes are copied onto V, since, on our assumptions, T has only person feature and v has only number feature. (Although the gender feature of the verb is not checked against the KP, it is checked against C when it excorporates out of the V+v+T complex and undergoes feature movement to C in LF. Note that C has gender feature in (40).) The asymmetry between subject and object agreements is accounted for in this way. Now, let us consider the Arabic generalization (36), repeated here: (36)

The pronominals agree with the verb in gender, person, and number, whereas the nonpronominals agree with the verb only in gender.

Arabic is a rigid VSO language. (Recall that in the SVO order, the preverbal subject is a topic or focus.) A standard analysis of a VSO language is that its underlying word order is SVO and the surface order is derived by verb raising to a higher functional head than the position where the subject occupies at Sstructure. Depending on whether the subject occurs at S-structure, two different analyses are available: (i) the subject occupies [Spec, I] and the verb is moved to C (Choe 1987; Chung 1990); (ii) the subject remains in [Spec, v] (its underlying position under the predicate-internal subject hypothesis) and the verb is moved to I (McCloskey 1992; Harley 1995; Chomsky 1993; and references therein). A priori, different languages may be subject to different analyses. Therefore, in the absence of evidence against it, let us adopt the former analysis for Arabic. Then, we have the following structure for the VSO order in this language:

246


In (43), although the subject overtly fills [Spec, T], a Spec-Head relation is not established between [Spec, T] and T, under the natural assumption that traces are invisible to syntactic computation (cf. chapter 3, (48)). Then, the formal features of the subject (in particular, Case) must be checked in LF by moving to the checking domain of the complex head in C. Now, let us assume, following Chomsky (1995:chapter 4), that every movement can in principle be movement of formal features contained in a category, rather than the category itself. Given this hypothesis and our assumptions concerning PF- and LF-convergence and economy of derivation (cf. chapter 1), we obtain (44) as a theorem (see chapter 1 for more details): (44)

All LF movement is feature movement if it suffices to LF convergence.

We have also been assuming the following definition of Attract/Move-F: (45)

W attracts F if F is the closest feature that can enter into a checking relation with a sublabel of W. (Chomsky 1995:297)

As an implementation of (45), let us propose that in Arabic, when the attractor (=W) is a complex head, all the checkable features in it can potentially enter into a checking relation with the relevant feature(s) in its c-command domain,13 though the Attract-F is constrained by the MLC in (45). With these hypotheses in mind, let us look at the derivation of the feature checking when the subject KP in (43) is nonpronominal. Given (45) and the featural organization in (40), the proposal just made about Arabic means that all of the person, gender, and number features can potentially enter into checking relation with the KP, since the V+v+T+C complex contains them all. However, the movement applied to the subject KP in Arabic is feature movement, rather than movement of the whole category. Thus, the attractor scans the internal structure of the KP and seeks the closest feature in it, which is the gender feature of K, which is the highest functional category in a noun phrase. As a result, only the gender feature of K is attracted to the checking domain of C and checked against C. Since we have been assuming that only the morphological features that have actually been attracted and checked against a verbal complex can be copied


247

onto V, the V in (43) manifests only the gender agreement when the subject KP is nonpronominal.14 Next, consider the derivation of the feature checking when the subject KP is pronominal. Unlike the nonpronominal, the pronominal in Arabic agrees with the complex in all the phi-features. This fact follows from the independently justified claim that pronominals are raised to K in overt syntax. Given this claim, when the V+v+T complex is to attract some formal feature of K, it attracts all the three phifeatures, since the pronoun in K has them all. Hence, the morphological agreement on V manifests itself with respect to person, number, and gender. The asymmetry between pronominals and nonpronominals in Arabic follows in this way. The present account based on the Attract-F Theory is independently motivated by the following paradigms in Classical Arabic, cited from Mohammad (1989:226): (46) a. jaa?a l-?awlaad-u w-al-banaat-u came-3sg.masc the-boys-Nom and-the-girls-Nom The boys and the girls came.' b. *jaa?uu l-?awlaad-u w-al-banaat-u came-3pl.masc. the-boys-Nom and-the-girls-Nom The boys and the girls came.' (47) a. jaa?at 1-banaat-u w-al-?awlaad-u came-3sg.fem. the-girls-Nom and-the-boys-Nom The girls and the boys came.' b. *ji?na 1-banaat-u w-al-?awlaad-u came-3pl.fem. the-girls-Nom and-the-boys-Nom The girls and the boys came.' Here, the subjects in these examples are composed of two conjoined KPs, each of which is plural. In both (46) and (47), verbs, subjects and objects are linearized in the VSO order. (46) differs from (47) only in that, while in (46) the former conjuncts are third person plural masculine KPs and the latter are third person plural feminine KPs, in (47) the two conjuncts are reversed. Nevertheless, this asymmetry in the ordering of two conjuncts reflects in the pattern of agreement manifested on the verb: the verb must agree with the former conjunct of the conjoined subjects only in gender. This fact is not surprising under the Attract/Move-F theory and the &P analysis of coordinate structures (Larson 1990). Given these, what moves in LF is always the features of the K of the first conjunct, since the former conjunct asymmetrically c-commands the latter conjunct and since K asymmetrically ccommands D, Num, and N. Hence, the V+v+T complex always agrees only in gender with the first conjunct.

248


4.2.4.4 A Summary In this subsection, we have provided the fourth piece of evidence for the KP Hypothesis, in view of the distribution of the three phi-features, i.e., gender, person, and number. In particular, we have argued that K and C are the locuses exclusively of gender feature and that the other two phi-features are assigned to D and Num in noun phrases and T and v in clauses, respectively, as shown in (31b) and (40): (31) b. [KP K [DP D [Nump Num [KP N ]]]]] (40) [cp C [TP T [vPv [vp V

This proposal enabled us to explain two asymmetries concerning agreement, one between pronominals and nonpronominals in Arabic and the other between subjects and objects in French. 4.2.5 Case Particles Noun phrases generally occur in a Case-marked position and are assigned Nominative, Accusative, Dative, Genitive, and so on, depending on their grammatical functions. The Cases are sometimes morphologically realized as Case-particles (Japanese, Hebrew) or as inflections on determiners (e.g., German, Modern Greek) and otherwise unrealized except for pronouns (e.g., French, English, Italian). In this subsection, we claim that Case particles occur in K in all languages with the particle system. A language that demonstrates this point most clearly is one in which overt Case particles and overt determiners co-occur separately. Thus, let us first discuss one such language, Standard Arabic. 4.2.5.1 Standard Arabic Standard Arabic (SA) is a language in which a definite article and a Case particle can co-occur, and when they do, the following properties are observed: [A] They co-occur separately, where the article is prenominal and the Caseparticle is postnominal: (48) a. l-?awlaad-u 'the-boys-Nom' b. l-walad-a 'the boy-Ace' c. 1-bayt-i 'the house-Gen' [B ] A possessor of N, if any, always occurs postnominally : (49) da:r-a r-rajul-i house-Ace the-man-Gen 'the man's house'


249

[C] When a possessor and an adjectival modifier to N co-occur, the former must precede the latter: (50) a. da:r-a r-rajul-i l-wa:sicat-i house-Ace the-man-Gen the-large-Gen 'the man's large house' b. *da:r-a l-wa:sicat-i r-rajul-i (cf. Ritter 1991:47) c.

*l-wa:sicat-i da:r-a r-rajul-i

[D] The indefinite article always occurs at the right edge of a noun phrase: (51) rajul-u-n man-Nom-indef. 'a man' [E] When there is a possessor, the definiteness of a whole noun phrase is represented once and for all on the possessor: (52) a. da:r-a r-rajul-i (=(49)) house-Ace the-man-Gen 'the man's house' b. *da:r-a-n r-rajul-i house-Acc-indef. the-man-Gen 'a house of the man' c. *d-da:r-a r-rajul-i the-house-Acc the-man-Gen 'the house of the man' We show that all these paradigms are derived from the KP Hypothesis and the assumptions that Case particles in SA are always in K and that the N in SA always raises up to K." Note, first, that in SA, V, P, N, I, and C all precede their complements, and hence it is a strictly head-initial language, with the Case particle and the indefinite article being the only exceptions (cf. (48) and (51), respectively). However, in view of the uniformity of the values of the head-parameters across categories in a single language, it is reasonable to assume that the two exceptional cases do not reflect the underlying structures but are derived by movement.16 Thus, it is possible that N raises and adjoins to a functional category F headed by a Case particle, as in (53a), or that NP or NumP or DP raises to the Spec of the FP, as in (53b):

(53) a. b.

ta N-Acc (= F ... [NP tN ]] [FP NP/NumP/DP [F. Acc (= F) ... ?NP/NumP/DP ]]

The XP-movement analysis in (53b) seems to accommodate the fact in (48) more directly. Suppose that FP = KP. Then, the Determiner-Noun-Case particle order will be derived if the DP headed by the determiner is raised to the Spec of KP.


250

However, if DP can move, it is difficult to ensure the word order in (51): whether the indefinite article is in the head or the Spec of DP, it should precede the N if the whole DP is raised to the Spec of KP. The facts in (49), (50), and (52b) also force us to choose the head-movement analysis in (53a). Consider first (52a-c). Recall our assumption that the alienable possessor of an N is base-generated in the Spec of DP. Given this assumption and the headmovement analysis in (53a), the fact that N precedes the possessor and follows the Case particle in (52a) can be analyzed as follows: the N has undergone overt movement to K. We can rule out (52b-c) because N-to-K movement cannot pick up the definite or indefinite article on its way, under the assumption that when the Spec of a DP is occupied by a possessor, its head must be empty (cf. *the/a the man's book and *the man's the/a book). Next, consider (49) and (50a). Under the head-movement analysis in (53a), we can assign the following structures to (49) and (50a), respectively: (54) a. [KP N+D+Acc (= K) [DP KP (poss.) [D. rD [NP fN ]]]] (= (49)) b. [KP N+Num+D+Acc (= K) [DP KP (poss.) [D. tD [NumP AP [ Num - tNum [NP?N ]]]]]]

(=(50a))

Examples (49) and (50a) are both well-formed, since (54a-b) are legitimate structures. (50b) is ill-formed because in (54b) the possessor in the Spec of DP cannot follow the adjectives in the Spec of NumP. (50c) is ruled out since the AP cannot precede the N raised to K. Hence, the head-movement analysis enables us to account for (49), (50a-c), and (52a-c). As shown in (55), while the definite article always precedes N, the indefinite determiner always follows the Case-particle. This asymmetry remains to be explained: (55) a. b.

1-walad-a rajul-u-n

'the boy-Ace' (= (48b)) 'man-Nom-indef.' (= (51))

We suggest that both the definite and indefinite articles in SA are base-generated in the Spec of DP and that only the definite article is raised and adjoined to the N+D+K complex created after N is raised to K:17 (56) [KP 1i -[waladN-

D-aK] [DP ti [D. tD [NP tN

]]]] (= (55a))

Such a movement from a Spec to head is permitted here, since the article is a minimal-maximal projection in the sense of Chomsky (1995). The adjunction is forced by the proclitic nature of the definite article in SA. Hence, the definite article must precede the head N. On the other hand, if we assume that the indefinite article is not a proclitic, it must remain in the Spec of DP. Therefore, the indefinite article follows the Case particle, as in (55b). To sum up, the KP Hypothesis and the assumption that every Case particle


251

occurs in the head of KP and that every N is raised to K in SA have enabled us to explain all the paradigms in [A] to [E], with just one additional assumption. Hence, we can conclude that K is necessary independent of D and Num in order to accommodate the distribution of Case particles in SA. 4.2.5.2. Japanese Another piece of evidence for the claim that Case particles are in K comes from the discussion of a distributional asymmetry between two quantifiers subete-no '(lit.) all-Gen' and subete 'all' in Japanese. Although they appear to be identical except for the presence or absence of the Genitive Case marker, we argue that they differ to the same extent as every and all in English. Specifically, we propose that while subete-no, just like every, is a quantificational adjective that is adjoined to NumP, subete, just like all, is a quantificational determiner that appears in the head of QP (see section 2.3). On the basis of this proposal and the fact that a Case particle in Japanese must always follow subete, we conclude that all Case particles in this language are in K. Let us start our discussion by comparing the following similarities and differences between two quantifiers every and all in English: (57) a. b. c. d. (58) a. b. (59) a. b. c. d. (60) a. b. c. d.

every red rose *red every rose all (the) red roses *red all (the) roses *every three book(s) all the three books his every step *every his step *his all (the) books all his books *They every are/is handsome. *Every they are/is handsome. They all are handsome. *A11 they are handsome.

Examples (57a) to (57d) indicate that both every and all must precede a color adjective. Examples (58a) and (58b) show that while all can co-occur with a numeral quantifier, every cannot (failure of number agreement in (58a) is irrelevant for its ill-formedness, since every one book is also bad; the wellformedness of every three weeks is irrelevant here since every here is not used as a universal quantifier). Examples (59a) to (59d) indicate that, when a possessor co-occurs with every or all, every must follow the possessor, while all must precede it. Examples (60a) to (60d) demonstrate that, while every never co-occurs with a pronoun, all can if it follows a pronoun.


252

These four pairs of examples help us determine the structural positions of the two quantifiers. Recall our assumption that the color adjective, the numeral quantifier, the possessor, and the pronoun are in the projections of N, Num, D and K, respectively. Then, judging from the relative orderings observed between them and every in (57a-b) and (59a-b), every seems to occur in the projection of Num, since it is higher than the color adjective and lower than the possessor. On the other hand, the fact that the quantifier all is higher than any other element except for pronouns indicates that it originates in Q: (61)

[KP K (pronouns) [QP Q (all) [DP possessor [D. D (the) [NumP every [NumP Num [NP Color Adjective [NP N (PP) ]]]]]]]]]18

Now, with the difference in positions between every and all in mind, let us go into the examination of the Japanese quantifiers subete-no and subete. Basically, they occur in the following environments: (62) a. b.

Subete-no gakusei-ga kita. all-Gen student-Nom came Gakusei-subete-gakita." student-all-Nom came

A nominal element that precedes the N head and does not form a compound with it is assigned the Genitive Case-particle no in Japanese. No is normally assumed to be inserted between the two Ns by the no-insertion rule, a rule comparable to the of-insertion rule in English. The no-insertion rule is formulated as follows (Murasugi 1991:29; cf. also Stowell 1981): (63)

In the environment [

... 13 ...], adjoin no to

a. a is some projection of [+N], and b. 3 is an immediate constituent of a , and c. for some , the head of , follows

where

.

Given (63c), one might argue that the postnominal subete in (62b) occupies the same position in phrase structure as subete-no in (62a) (i.e., a position adjoined to NumP) and follow the N in linear order because of the scrambling of NP across NumP, as in (64): (64)

[DP

NP (gakusei) [D. [NumP subete(*-no) [Nump tNp Num (

)]] D]]20

In (64), no is not inserted after subete since neither Num or N is phonologically realized. However, we cannot adopt this analysis, since a co-occurrence restriction that is not imposed on subete is imposed on subete-no. This point can be shown by the following contrast:


253

(65) a.

San-nin-no gakusei-subete-ga kita. three-CL-Gen student-all-Nom came 'All the three students came.' b. *San-nin-no subete-no gakusei-ga kita. c. *Subete-no san-nin-no gakusei-ga kita. d. *Subete-no gakusei-san-nin-ga kita.

Examples (65a) to (65d) show that, while the postnominal subete in (65a) can cooccur with the numeral quantifier san-nin-no, the prenominal subete-no in (65bd) cannot. If subete is nondistinct from subete-no, and if gakusei in (62b) were derived by the optional scrambling of NP across subete, it would remain unclear why the scrambling of san-nin-no gakusei across subete is obligatory in (65).In other words, both (65a) and (65c) should be ruled in. If subete is parallel to all and subete-no is parallel to every,we can assimilate the contrast between (65a) and (65b-d) to the contrast between (58a) and (58b), which shows that all can co-occur with a numeral quantifier, but every cannot. Then, it is reasonable to conclude that subete-no and subete are the Japanese counterparts of every and all, respectively: subete is the head of QP, which follows its complement DP in Japanese, and subete-no is adjoined to NumP (see also note 18). This proposal is further justified by application of the same tests as in (57), (59), and (60) to the prenominal quantifier subete-no and the postnominal quantifier subete. The results of these tests are as follows, where the Nominative Case particle ga is added in order to indicate the right edge of a noun phrase: (66) a.

Subete-no akai bara-ga ... every-Gen red rose-Norn b. ??Akai subete-no bara-ga... c. Akai bara subete-ga ... (67) a. Kare-no subete-no ugoki-ga ... b. *Subete-no kare-no ugoki-ga ... c. Kare-no hon-subete-ga ... (68) a. *Subete-no karera-ga ... b. Karera subete-ga ...

(= (57a)) (= (57b)) (= (57c)) (= (59a)) (= (59b)) (= (59d)) (= (60a)) (- (60c))

The asymmetry between (66a) and (66b) and the one between (67a) and (67b) are parallel to those in the English examples with every. Hence, it is safe to conclude that subete-no is the Japanese counterpart of every. While (66b), (67b), and (68a) are ill-formed, (66c), (67c), and (68b) are well-formed. If the postnominal subete were identical to the prenominal subete-no, we would not expect these contrasts. On the other hand, if subete is the Japanese counterpart of all, it must be generated in the head of QP. Then, the fact that it always follows the head N follows from the fact that Japanese is a strictly head-final language. In fact, it must follow a postnominal numeral quantifier, which we can assume to head NumP:


254 (69) a. b.

Gakusei-san-nin-subete-ga kita. student-three-CL-all-Nom came 'All the three students came.' *Gakusei-subete~san-nin-ga kita.

This is as we expect, since K selects Q, Q selects D, and D selects Num. We can rule in (66c), (67c) and (68b) for the same reasons as (57c), (59d) and (60c), respectively. Hence, we conclude that subete is the Japanese counterpart of all. Now, on the basis of this conclusion, let us justify our claim that the Case particle in Japanese occupies K. What concerns us here is the fact that the UQ must precede the Case particle. This order can be ensured only if the Case particle occupies the head of KP. If it headed DP, it should precede the UQ in the head of QP, as shown in (70): (70)

[KP [QP [DP [NP akai [NP N (bara) ]] D (ga/o/ni)] Q(subete)] K ( )]

One might regard the sequence akai-bara-o-subete in (71) as a constituent, that is, a noun phrase: (71)

Akai bara-o subete nusum-are-ta. red rose-Ace all steal-Pass-Past 'We have all the red roses stolen.'

However, subete in (71) is not part of a noun phrase but a floating quantifier (see note 19), since the sequence akai-bara-o-subete in (71) cannot occur in the focus position of a cleft construction: (72)

*Kinoo nusum-are-ta-no-wa akai bara-o subete da. yesterday steal-Pass-Past-Nz-Top red rose-Ace all Cop-Pres '*It is red roses all that were stolen yesterday.' (cf. Kinou nusum-are-ta-no-wa akai bara-subete da.)

Rather, subete in (71) seems to form a constituent with a projection of V, since (73) is well-formed: (73)

Kinoo subete nusum-are-ta-no-wa akai bara-o da. yesterday all steal-Pass-Past-Nz-Top red rose-Ace be-Pres 'It is red roses that were all stolen yesterday.'

In short, in order for subete to form a constituent with a noun phrase, it must precede the Case particle. This, in turn, suggests that the Case particle must occupy the head of KP, as shown in (74): (74) [KP [OP [D1, [NP AP (akai) [NP N (bara)]] D (

)] Q (subete)] K (ga/o/ni)]


255

One support for this conclusion is the fact that in (68b) the pronoun precedes both the UQ and the Case particle. If the pronouns must always move to K, it should follow at least the UQ. However, if we assume that the pronominal shift occurs to the empty K and that the Case particle fills the K head, the absence of such movement in (68b) is naturally expected. 4.2.6 A Summary In this section, we have provided five arguments for the KP Hypothesis. The first is based on A'-movement inside a noun phrase in Hungarian. The second is based on the co-occurrence of a determiner and a possessor in a single noun phrase in Hungarian, Romanian, Italian, and Norwegian. The third is based on the phenomenon which we call 'pronominal shift'. The fourth is based on the distribution of phi-features, in particular, the theory-internal evidence that gender feature is exclusively in K in Standard Arabic (SA). The fifth is the argument that every overt Case particle is in K, at least in SA and in Japanese. In the next section, on the basis of the conclusions reached in this section, we discuss the so-called Case Adjacency Condition, which is active in English but not in Romance languages. We argue that this asymmetry follows from the affixal status of the null K, which is comparable to the null C, and the parameter concerning the position of an overt determiner.

4.3 The Case Adjacency Effects It is well known that in English a nominal complement to a verb must immediately follow the verb and that no adverb or PP may intervene between them. No such constraint is imposed on a PP complement to a verb. Relevant contrasts are given below: (75) a. b. (76) a. b.

Mike visited his parents quietly, *Mike visited quietly his parents. Betsy spoke with everyone loudly, Betsy spoke loudly with everyone.

Since Chomsky (1981), the ill-formedness of (75b) has been called the 'Case adjacency effect'. On the basis of Vergnaud's (1977) proposal that every NP must be assigned a Case (the so-called Case Filter) and Chomsky's (1981) proposal that Case is assigned under government, Stowell (1981) argued that this effect is derived from a strict condition of adjacency imposed on the Case assignment (77b): (77) Case Assignment under Government:21 In the configuration [ ...] or [... ], a Case-marks

, where


256

a. a governs and b. a is adjacent to , and c. a is [-N]. His approach to the asymmetry between (75) and (76) is a clear improvement over an earlier approach to it, which simply stated that V and its object NP must be linearly adjacent. Though this statement singled out the category NP, there was no theoretical motivation for it. Therefore, Stowell's approach is preferred to earlier ones in that it attributes the category-specific nature of the linear adjacency condition to the Case Filter. However, the nature of the adjacency condition in (77b) remains highly descriptive. Furthermore, we have to assume that it is a language-particular condition, since no comparable effect is observed in French and Italian. In fact, in these languages, certain classes of adverbs must appear between a verb and its nominal complement, which means that an anti-adjacency condition is at work in these languages (cf. Emonds (1978) and Pollock (1989) for French, Rizzi (1982) and Cinque (1995) for Italian): (78) a. b.

Jean embrasse souvent Marie. Jean kisses often Marie 'Jean often kisses Mary.' *Jean souvent embrasse Marie.

In view of our ultimate goal to uncover the nature of Universal Grammar (UG), we are not satisfied with such language-particular conditions as the adjacency condition or the anti-adjacency condition, even if they are descriptively adequate. 22 We hope to derive them from the interaction of principles and parameters which have a wider empirical coverage. In this section, we first briefly review three such works, the first proposed by Johnson (1991), the second by Koizumi (1993, 1995) and the third by Chomsky (1995). We then suggest an alternative analysis which solves the problems involved in their works. 4.3.1 Johnson (1991) Rejecting the language-particular adjacency condition in (77b) and the hypothesis that the PP in (76b) has undergone rightward movement, Johnson (1991) claims that the object NPs must be adjacent to a verb in (75) because they move to a position preceding V. He first makes the following three assumptions: (79) a. b. c.

Specifiers of XP precede X'. Verbs always move out of the VP they head. Accusative Case-marked NPs move to Specifier of VP.


257

Although he provides no way to derive (79a), it may follow from Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). As for (79b), he argues, following Larson (1988:345), that the following examples demonstrate it: (80) a. b. c.

Gary put [the book on the table] and [the lamp on the sofa]. Chris ate [the meat slowly] but [the vegetables quickly]. Sam talked [to Mittie yesterday] and [to Betsy the day before].

Given that coordination normally involves constituents, examples such as those in (80) suggest that the bracketed strings form constituents. If so, they have to be analyzed as VPs that have undergone across-the-board verb raising, as in (81): (81) Chris atei [VP [VPti the meat slowly] and [VP t, the vegetables quickly]]. Thus, he claims that the verbs in (80) have been raised and adjoined to a functional head called u (cf. Pesetsky 1989 for some discussion). As for (79c), he assumes that Accusative Case-marking takes place only when a verb raises to (i and the object NP moves to the Spec of VP and the former governs the latter in a configuration similar to the ECM construction. He argues that the assumptions in (79) derive the asymmetry between NP complements and non-NP complements with respect to the adjacency without recourse to the adjacency condition. In his analysis, the example in (75a), for example, has the structure as in (82): (75) a. b.

Mike visited his parents quietly. *Mike visited quietly his parents.

Since the NP-movement to the Spec of VP is obligatory, the word order in (75b) will not be generated. In contrast, non-NP complements to a verb may either follow or precede the verb, as we have seen in (76). In his analysis, both examples in (76) are generated since non-NPs do not move to the Spec of VP and adverbs may adjoin either to the left or to the right of V: (76) a. b.

Betsy spoke with everyone loudly, Betsy spoke loudly with everyone.

258


This is Johnson's explanation of the Case adjacency effect for NP-complements and its absence for non-NP complements.

4.3.2

Problems with Johnson's Analysis

One major problem with Johnson's analysis is that, in addition to (79a-c), he needs to assume that adverbs cannot adjoin to VP. In (77), if the adverb quickly could adjoin to VP rather than V, the order V-Adv-DP would be derived, and (75b) would be incorrectly ruled in:

He himself notices this problem and suggests a possibility that there is an independent constraint on adjunction to VP in English since there are no such examples with respect to leftward adjunction to VP, as in (85): (85) a. b.

?*She remembered that Betsy had on the floor put it. *Sam remembered that they'd only his problem talked about.

However, this argument does not stand, since, given his assumption that every verb is raised to in English (see (79b)), the PP in (85a) and the NP in (85b) which he alleges to be adjoined to VP are in fact adjoined to ' or a higher position. Hence, the ill-formedness of (85) is irrelevant for determining whether


259

or not English allows VP-adjunction. If VP-adjunction movement is possible at all, there is no reason to prevent VP-adjunction in the base, and he loses his account of the example (75b). Another problem with his analysis is that English allows extraction from an object. He suggests that since the following examples are well-formed, the PPs in these examples are not extraposed to the right of VP (but rather the verb has been raised and adjoined to ): (86) a. b.

Which girl, did Betsy talk quickly [PP about ti,]? WhOi must you speak loudly [PP to /J?

He explicitly argues that this conclusion is forced, since extraction from a moved phrase is blocked in English and extraposition of the PPs in (86) would force such an ill-formed derivation: (87) *whj ... [VP [VP [VP V tt ] Adv ] [P p P tj]i] However, given this conclusion, extraction from an object as in (88a) should be ruled out in English, since he has to provide to it the structure in (88b), where extraction takes place from a moved noun phrase:23 (88) a. Whoi did you see a picture of ti? b. whoi, ... V+ u [vp [DP a picture of ti ] [v. tv tDP ]] 4.3.3 Koizumi (1993,1995) Koizumi's (1993, 1995) account of the Case adjacency effects is quite similar to Johnson's in that he assumes that English has both overt object shift and overt verb raising. However, a crucial difference between them is that, while Johnson still needs to admit two possible configurations for Case-marking, that is, the Spec-Head one and the ECM-like one, Koizumi assumes Chomsky's (1993) AGR-based Case Theory, which says that all structural Cases are uniformly checked in the Spec-Head configuration (in AgrP):

Nominative Case is checked in the configuration of (89a), where T is adjoined to AgrS and subject DP occupies the Spec of AgrSP and both are in the checking

260


domain of AgrS. Accusative Case is checked in the configuration of (89b), where V is adjoined to AgrO and object DP is moved to the Spec of AgrOP and both are in the checking domain of AgrO. Thus, Nominative and Accusative Cases are licensed in quite parallel fashions. On the basis of this AGR-based Case Theory, Koizumi argues that both subject and object raisings in (89a-b) are overt and obligatory in English. Koizumi (1993, 1995) also proposes the Split VP Hypothesis, whose essence is that the subject originates in a position higher than the derived position of an object. Given this hypothesis and (89a-b), the structure of a single clause in English is schematized as follows:

On the basis of the proposed structure, he has solved a problem with Johnson's analysis: he had to assume that adverbs can adjoin to V but not to VP. Given (90), this assumption is no longer necessary: the VP-adverb may adjoin to VP or V. Since there are two VPs, there are four positions for it to adjoin to. Whichever position is chosen, it does not occur between a verb and an object. When the illicit order occurs, it must adjoin to AgrOP. However, there is a natural reason for blocking adjunction to this position: since a modifier must enter into modification relation with a modified element, it cannot adjoin to AgrOP, a semantically vacuous projection. Hence, it follows that a VP-adverb either precedes the main verb or follows the object.24 In addition to its ability to account for the ill-formedness of English (75b) in an elegant way, Koizumi's theory is also advantageous in that it can provide a principled explanation for the well-formedness of (91): (91)

John probably has arrived at New York by now.


261

The well-formedness of (91), where an adverb intervenes between a subject and a finite verb raised to T, suggests that the Case adjacency requirement is not imposed on the relation between a Nominative Case assigner and its recipient. This fact was problematic in Stowell's (1981) system. Now, in Koizumi's framework, it is ruled in since the adverb here is not adjoined to a projection of Agr but is adjoined to TP, which is a licit adjunction cite between VP and AGRsP. As expected, if we force an adverb to be adjoined to AgrSP by placing an adverb between a subject and an auxiliary that has raised to C, the sentence becomes ill-formed: (92)

*Will tomorrow Sue speak French?

(Koizumi 1995:28)

Moreover, (76a-b) are both well-formed, since in the AGR-based Case Theory no PP is forced to move to [Spec, AgrO]. If it does not, and if the lower V (V2) overtly raises to the higher V (VI) as in (90), then the adverb can be adjoined to VP2 to produce the word order . Hence, the prohibition against adjunction to AgrP is not violated in (76b). Finally, the fact that the word order is forced in French and Italian (= (78a-b)) can be accounted for in his system as follows: suppose that in Romance languages, unlike in English, the Case feature of AgrO is weak, so that the shift of the direct object DP to [Spec, AgrO] is postponed until LF due to the principle of Procrastinate. Then, since these languages have overt raising of finite verbs to T (even nonfinite verbs will raise at least to VI), at most two adjunction sites are available for adverbs: a manner adverb can adjoin to VP1, and an adverb such as a peine/souvent can adjoin to VP2. Hence, at least V2-modifying adverbs can intervene between a direct object DP and a main verb, whether the latter is finite or nonfinite. 4.3.4 Potential Problems with Koizumi's Analysis Koizumi's approach to the Case adjacency problem can cover all the major cases of possible and impossible linear relations between V and a DP. It still is unsatisfactory, however, since there are a couple of (potential) problems with his analysis. First of all, as intended in the AGR-based Case Theory, the syntactic relation between the object in [Spec, AgrO] and the head Agr is identical to the subject in [Spec, AgrS] and the head AgrS, where AgrS and AgrO are assumed to be two different instances of the same category Agr (cf. Chomsky 1993). And it is known that extraction out of the subject moved to [Spec, AgrS] in overt syntax in blocked by the Subject Condition, the CED or whatever principle reformulates them (see (93a)). Then, if the object is moved to [Spec, AgrO] in overt syntax, as Koizumi (1993, 1995) claims, it remains to be explained why extraction out of the object DP is not blocked in English unless it is specific/presuppositional: (93) a. b.

*Who did [a picture of t] please Mary? Who did you see [a picture of t]?

262


One might want to rely on the difference in categories which have adjoined to the category Agr (T in (90a) and V in (90b)). However, the contrast between (93a) and (93b) is actually not the one between subjects and objects, but we also find ill-formedness to occur in case of the extraction out of the direct object which is interpreted as the notional/semantic subject (in Rothstein's 1983 terms) of the following predicate. Compare (93b) with (94a-c): (94) a. b. c.

*the person who we gave [a picture of t] a new frame *Who do you believe [pictures of t] to be on sale? *the man (OP) that I consider [pictures of t] unflattering

In Koizumi's system, the bracketed objects in (94) are all moved overtly to the matrix [Spec, AgrO], leading to the same relevant configuration as in (93b). Then, it remains mysterious why (93b) is well-formed but (94a-c) are not. One way out is to reformulate the Subject Condition/CED as a condition that applies not in syntax but in the PF component or in the logical form. This implies that we resurrect Kuno's (1973) Constraint or newly propose a condition on extraction out of notional subjects rather than configurational Specifier elements. Since these possibilities are left as options, the problem posed by the contrasts noted is only potential, rather than crucial. But if we do not assume overt object shift to [Spec, AgrO], we can maintain the standard idea that (A'-)extraction out of a noncomplernent position in overt syntax is uniformly blocked. A second (potential) problem is also concerned with subject-object asymmetries. In English, although subject-oriented floating quantifiers (FQs) are permitted, object-oriented FQs are not. The relevant examples are listed in (95): (95) a. b.

The men will all come (tomorrow), *I called the men all (yesterday).

If there is no object shift in English, we can account for this asymmetry in such a way as Sportiche (1988) or Doetjes (1992) does. However, if the men in (95a) has been moved to [Spec, AgrS] and the men in (95b) to [Spec, AgrO], it is unclear why the universal quantifier cannot be stranded only in (95b) (the same problem also occurs in Johnson's 1991 analysis). Here again, we have the contrast between (95b) and (95f) on the one hand and (96a-e) on the other: (96) a. I gave the kinds all some candy. b. I believe the soldiers both to have left. c. We consider the Joneses both unbearably pompous. d. Larry, Darryl and Darryl came to the cafe all at the same time. e. Larry, Darryl and Darryl came to the cafe all very tired. f. *Larry, Darryl and Darryl came to the cafe all. (Babalijk 1995:212)


263

Since no theory of floating quantifiers (FQs) has ever succeeded in explaining their distribution in a perfectly correct way, the problem raised by the contrast in question does not seriously undermine Koizumi's proposal. However, it is again clear that if we do not assume overt object shift to [Spec, AgrO], we can maintain the standard, simplest, idea that an FQ is possible only if its antecedent is moved. Another potential problem with Koizumi's approach, which is more conceptual than empirical, is that it is crucially based on the existence of the projection of AgrP between the higher and lower VPs as a landing site of the overt movement of the direct object DP. In the spirit of the strong minimalist thesis, Chomsky (1995:chapter 4) suggests that Agr and any other scmantically vacuous functional categories that do not receive an interpretation in either of the two interface levels (PF and LF) should be eliminated from grammar and that almost the same empirical coverage can be retained even if we do away with Agr, if we adopt another strong minimalist thesis that a head can license an unlimited number of Specifiers in its projection. Suppose it turns out that we do not have to use AgrP elsewhere or better eliminate it on empirical grounds, or that the functional projection that resides between the higher and lower VPs as the landing site of object shift, if any, is not AgrP but has another label, such as AspectP, VoiceP, or EventP, as suggested by several linguists. Then, Koizumi's account that crucially hinges on the prohibition against adjunction to a scmantically vacuous projection cannot be maintained anymore. 4.3.5 Chomsky (1995) Chomsky (1995:chapter 4) starts his discussion of the Case adjacency problem by pointing out that the following contrasts are not reasonably attributable to the assumption that optional V-raising to a higher functional head is permissible in the case of PP objects (as in (98b)) but not in the case of DP objects (as in (97b)): (97) a. b. (98) a. b.

John often reads books, *John reads often books. John often reads to his children, John reads often to his children.

He presents two motivations for his suggestion. First, even in cases in which it seems that a verb that selects a PP 'must be' (rather than 'can be') raised to a higher functional head position, the same verb that selects a DP cannot: (99) a. b. c.

*John every day reads to his children. John reads every day to his children. *John reads every day books.

Second, even in cases in which the head that selects a complement (i.e., internal argument) cannot be raised to a higher functional head position, an adverb may intervene between the head and its complement:

264


(100) a. John made a decision (last night, suddenly) to leave town. b. John felt an obligation (last night, suddenly) to leave town. In (100), although the nominal heads of the complex predicates make a decision and feel an obligation cannot be raised to a higher functional head position, certain matrix-modifying adverbs such as last night and suddenly can occur between the head nouns and the internal arguments of the complex predicates. From these considerations, he concludes that 'we cannot conclude from the matrix scope of Adv [in (101)] that a has raised out of the embedded phrase /3': (101)

[...[„ a Adv [to-VP]]...]

He then moves on to suggest a Larsonian solution to the Case adjacency effects. More specifically, assuming that no adjunction is possible to the maximal projection of the lowest V for semantic reasons and that the lowest V in the Larsonian VP shell is always (perhaps, universally) raised to the light verb v in whose Spec the subject originates and which is selected by Agr, he suggests an MLC-based solution to the relevant paradigms. Consider the following structure, where a is an adverb and is either a direct object DP or PP:

In (102) the verb reads is overtly raised to v to derive the word order . In the LF derivation that continues from (102), the weak Case feature of Agr needs to attract the Case feature of the object to its checking domain, though it is blocked by the MLC when an adverb intervenes in [Spec, V]. This holds true whether or not the verb is raised to v and the V+v complex raises further to Agr, because he defines the notion of 'closeness' that is part of the definition of the MLC as follows (ibid.:299): (103)

is closer to HP [= the target of the movement; AgrP in (102)] than a if j3 c-commands a and is not in the minimal domain of CH [= (v, r) in (102)].


265

According to (103), neither a nor in (102) is in the minimal domain of the chain (v, t) and a (= Adv) c-commands 3 (= DP).Therefore, a is closer to Agr than . Given (103), it is irrelevant to the calculation of the 'closeness' whether or not a and in (102) are in the same minimal domain. Consequently, the attraction of by Agr in (102) is blocked by the intervention of a (= Adv). This means that the Case feature of neither Agr nor the DP is checked, and the derivation crashes at LF. This is why (97b) is ruled out. On the other hand, other thing being equal, in (102) can be PP, since a PP does not have to move to Agr for Case reasons. Hence, the so-called Case adjacency effects appears only if there intervenes an adverb between the main verb and its direct object DP. This is Chomsky's story. 4.3.6 Potential Problems with Chomsky's (1995) Analysis Note that Chomsky's account of the Case adjacency effects does not hinge upon the overt object shift to [Spec, Agr] in English and what is spelled-out as 'Agr' in (102) may be innocuously replaced by any semantically nonvacuous functional category. Therefore, there does not arise any of the (potential) problem we pointed out against Koizumi (1995). However, there occur other kinds of problems along these lines. First, given his conclusion that the alternation between (98a) and (98b) should not be the result of the optionality of overt verb raising, he is led to assume that the adverb often in (98a) appears in some higher position than VP (cf. Chomsky 1995:331). Suppose that it is generated in the outer Spec of vP in (102) (note that it is implausible to place it in [Spec, Agr]). Suppose also that T takes AgrP as its complement. Then, even if Agr raises to T, neither Spec position in vP is in the minimal domain of (Agr, t). Hence, when a strong feature of T attracts the Subj in (104a), the MLC is violated (note that it is irrelevant whether or not Adv and Subj are in the same minimal domain):

266


This means that both (97a) and (98a) would be ruled out incorrectly: (97) a. John often reads books. (98) b. John often reads to his children. In order to avoid the incorrect result, one can assume that the adverb is generated in the lower Spec of vP, as in (104b):

In this structure, the overt raising of Subj to [Spec, T] is not blocked by Adv which does not c-command it. Moreover, if v raises to Agr in LF, [Spec, Agr], Subj and Adv are all in the minimal domain of CH = (v, t); hence, they are invisible to Agr when it seeks to attract the Case feature of the object DP from the inside of VP. As a result, the derivation converges in LF. So far so good. However, the same analysis does not extend to the following examples: (106) a. John T does not seem [PPto Mary] [(t') T to be [(t) smart]], b. John T is believed [AdvPsincerely] [(t') T to be [(t) smart]]. In (106a-b), the matrix PP/adverbs (= [Spec, V] in Chomsky's assumption) are not in the minimal domain of the matrix T. Even if seem and believed are overtly raised to v, whereby [Spec, v] and [Spec, V] are made equidistant from T, the movement does not put the two positions in the minimal domain of T. Hence, the matrix T cannot attract John in the embedded [Spec, T] without violating the MLC. The MLC violation could be avoided if the raised subject stopped by the outer Spec of the matrix v, since [Spec, v] and [Spec, V] are in the minimal domain of CH = (V, t). However, there is no reason to believe that the raised subject stops by the Spec of the matrix vP, because, in the French counterparts of (106a-b), no morphological agreement is mediated between the past participle and the DP raised to [Spec, T] (the object agreement is obligatory in case of clause-internal passivization, which suggests that the movement to [Spec, T] moves through [Spec, v]). Thus, (106a-b) would be ruled out incorrectly.


267

A more serious problem with his analysis is concerned with the formulation of the MLC. Let us consider why an intervening adverb can block the movement of an argument DP for the formal feature checking of the DP at all. Chomsky (1995:329) suggests that 'adverbs seem to have no morphological properties that require XP-adjunction,' and hence they 'do not form chains by CP-adjunction.' Then, a question arises as to why elements that do not potentially move by themselves for morphological reasons can block movement of other elements for morphological reasons. At the least, such an argument lacks conceptual motivation, and it is perhaps a self-contradiction because Chomsky elsewhere formulates the MLC in terms of identity of features rather than identity of the types of features or identity of the X-bar status (cf. also Chomsky 1998:20). In order to let an adverb block the Case-driven movement of a DP, the MLC needs to be reformulated in terms of the identity of the X-bar status, that is, both are maximal projections. However, this does not seem to be on the right track. Even worse, for reasons that are irrelevant to the present discussion, Chomsky (1995) redefines the notion of 'closeness' in the MLC some fifty pages later, as follows (ibid.:356): (107)

is closer to K [= the attractor] than a unless is in the same minimal domain as (a) r [= the target of raising] or (b) .

The 'unless'-clause (a) conveys the same meaning as the original formulation in (103), if we put aside the effect a head-movement has for the redefinition of the minimal domain. However, the 'unless'-clause (b) is newly introduced here and indeed has a significant impact on the previous account of the Case adjacency effects. Suppose that is an adverb in [Spec, V] and that a is the direct object DP at the complement of the same V. Then, (107) entails that the DP can move to [Spec, Agr] across the adverb without violating the MLC. Thus, Chomsky is longer able to maintain his original account of the Case adjacency effects observed in (97b) and (99c). To sum up, Chomsky (1995) has not (eventually) succeeded in accounting for the Case adjacency effects observed for direct object DPs in English. Even if he does not adopt the modified definition of 'closeness', his analysis is bound to both conceptual and empirical problems. Conceptually, it is undesirable to reformulate the MLC in terms of the X-bar status. Empirically, it cannot expect the well-formedness of (106a-b) (and the well-formedness of the French example in (5a), either). These reasons encourage us to approach the matter in question from a different perspective. Having demonstrated that both Koizumi's and Chomsky's analyses are based on constraints on syntactic derivations and/or semantic legitimacy and remain unsatisfactory, I will seek a morphological solution to the paradigm in the next section. Before that, however, I have a final remark as to the possibility of overt verb raising in English, which Chomsky seems to have dismissed altogether.


268 4.3.7

A Final Remark

I partially admit Chomsky's insight in that the contrast in (99) and the wellformedness of (lOOa-b) show that verb raising is not always responsible for the V-Adv-XP order: (99) a. b. c. (100) a. b.

*John every day reads to his children. John reads every day to his children. *John reads every day books. John made a decision (last night, suddenly) to leave town, John felt an obligation (last night, suddenly) to leave town.

In a language like English, in which a main verb never overtly raises to T or higher, it seems highly implausible to suppose that, whenever there is an adverb that obligatorily follows a main verb (or another lexical head), the main verb has been obligatorily moved across the adverb to a higher functional head position. Rather, we would have to rely on rightward movement of the internal argument across the sentence-final adverb(s) (or a mixture of the leftward movement of the internal argument and the movement of the remnant VP, as Kayne 1998 argues) in order to derive the correct word order. Thus, in (99b) the adverb is rightadjoined to VP or IP and the PP is moved rightward across the adverb; since such an operation has something to do with focus interpretation, elements which are 'light' both scmantically and phonologically, such as books in (99c), cannot be subject to this operation. Something like this must be said in any theory. However, this does not mean that a V-Adv-XP sequence is always derived by the rightward extraposition of the internal argument, nor that English does not permit (optional) overt verb raising in any case. Pollock (1997:271-272) observes that adverbs like barely, hardly, and merely can appear only in pre-VP positions: (108) a. *Bill knocked hardly on it. b. *Harry relies sure on it. A similar paradigm is also observed when the internal argument is CP: (109) a. John barely/loudly announced that Bill was innocent, b. *John announced barely/loudly that Bill was innocent. These paradigm might at first sight suggest that the main verbs in question can never raise to a higher functional head, including the v that selects the lowest VP. However, they may also be analyzed as showing that the adverbs in question are adjoined to the left of a functional head at least as high as v, and the main verb can never raise higher than v. The fact that, unlike adverbs like every day, the adverbs in question can never appear in a sentence-final position may support this view:


269

(110) a. John reads to his children every day. b. *John spoke to his friend barely/loudly. Therefore, suppose the latter analysis is correct. In this light, two possibilities are still left for the English verb raising: it must obligatorily raise to v in overt syntax (Chomsky 1995:331 appears to adopt this view), or it can raise to v in overt syntax only optionally. With this in mind, consider the following facts: (111) a. Bill (recently) knocked (recently) on it. b. She (carefully) looked (carefully) at him. (Pollock 1997:272) c. John (often) reads (often) to his children. (Chomsky 1995:329-330) If adverbs in (111) are adjoined to the left of the VP whose head selects the PP complement, and if the main verb can raise to v optionally, the ambiguous word order in (111) follows straightforwardly. In contrast, in order to derive the ambiguity without recourse to the optionality of overt verb raising, we would have to assume that these adverbs can adjoin either to the left or right of VP/vP and that the PP can undergo optional rightward movement. However, the latter assumption is not justified for two reasons. First, given the optionality of the rightward PP movement, (112) should be well-formed, contrary to fact: (112)

?*John reads to his children often.

Second, the sentence-final PPs in (llla-b) are too 'light' to be able to undergo rightward movement. Koizumi (1995:21, fn. 6) points out the following contrast: (113) a. As for Mary, Bill relied intentionally twice on her. (intentionally > twice) b. John relied intentionally twice [on the person you told me about]. (intentionally > twice / twice > intentionally) In (113a), where the PP is 'light', the preceding adverb intentionally can take scope only over the following adverb twice: Bill intentionally engaged in the act of relying twice on her. In contrast, in (113b), where the PP is 'heavy', the interpretation becomes ambiguous: John may have intentionally engaged in the act of relying twice on that person (one event) or have twice engaged in the act of intentionally relying on that person (two events). This contrast may be accounted for as follows: in (113a) since the 'light' PP cannot be shifted to the right, the two adverbs must be adjoined to the left of VP (whose head is raised up to v) in this order, which implies that the former asymmetrically c-commands the latter, and hence the scope is unambiguously fixed. On the other hand, (113b) can be analyzed in either of the following ways: when the adverbs are adjoined to the left of VP (whose head is raised up to v) in this order, the one preceding the other takes the wide scope; when they are adjoined to the right of VP in this order and the PP is shifted to the right across them, the inverse scope is obtained. Hence, the sentence is ambiguous. Turning back to (llla-b), the PPs here, being 'light',

270


cannot undergo the rightward movement, and therefore an adverb to its left must be unambiguously left-adjoined to VP. Hence, the main verb that precedes it must be raised to v. When the verb follows the adverb, on the other hand, the verb has not raised to v. In short, the overt verb raising to v is optional in English. If this is the case, a question has been illuminated why the optional verb raising to v is blocked in cases where the main verb selects a noun phrase as its object: (97) a. b.

John often reads books, *John reads often books.

I provide a morphological solution to this question in the next section. 4.3.8 A Morphological Approach to the Case Adjacency Problems We have reviewed Johnson's (1991), Koizumi's (1995), and Chomsky's (1995) approaches to the Case adjacency problems and rejected them on both conceptual and empirical grounds. If we name those previous analyses for convenience, we can say that Koizumi's approach to them is an essentially semantic approach, in the sense that it crucially uses AgrP and the assumption that adjunction to AgrP is prohibited on semantic grounds. Chomsky's approach can be said to be a syntactic approach in that it crucially reduces the ill-formedness of the sequence to the MLC, which is a principle that is at work in the core computational system. On the other hand, the approach to be developed here is an essentially morphological approach. A second departure of my proposal from the previous ones is to deal with the Case adjacency problem not as a problem that exclusively concerns the relation between a verb and its NP complement, but as part of a larger problem concerning the distribution of null (inflectional) affixes which we extensively discussed in chapter 2. Relevant examples are (114) to (117). (114) a. b. (115) a. b. (116) a. b. (117) a. b.

John believed (that) she was ill. Jean croyait *(que) elle etait malade. I sincerely believe (that) they will hijack an airplane. I believe sincerely *(that) they will hijack an airplane. Jean gave Marie a book. *Jean a donne Marie un livre. Jean supposes Marie to have resolved the problem, *Jean suppose Marie avoir resolu le probleme.

Recall that we have accounted for the obligatoriness of the overt C in (114b) and (115b) and the ill-formedness of (116b) and (117b) by condition (118) and by the assumption that the null C is universally an inflectional affix:

The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases (118)

271

*[[X+Y]+Z], where X is any element, Y is any inflectional affix, whether overt or null, and Z is any derivational affix. (= (5) in chapter 2)

The idea to be developed in this section is that the paradigm in (115) should be assimilated to that in (119): (119) a. Mike quietly visited his parents, b. *Mike visited quietly his parents. To implement this idea, the only two necessary hypotheses that have to be newly introduced here are the following: (120) a. Every argumental noun phrase is KP. b. The null K is universally an inflectional affix. Actually, given our conclusion in chapter 2 that every finite clause is CP and that the null C is universally an inflectional affix, and given the proposal defended in the previous sections in this chapter that K is the nominal counterpart of C, both (120a) and (120b) are the null hypotheses. It is also the null hypothesis that the null K must satisfy its affixal property either by the head that selects it or a head that has raised up and adjoined to it. Given these hypotheses, the structures of (119a-b) are schematized as follows: (121) a. tVP v [vp Adv [vp (I) K+V [KP tK [DP his parents]]]]] - *[VP f * K+v]+v [VPAdv [VP *v [RP fK [DP his parents]]]]]

b

Note that (121a-b) are quite parallel to (122a-b), respectively, which are the structures we can give to (115a-b), respectively. Since we have just seen that overt verb raising is in principle possible in English, (121b) cannot be ruled out just because the verb movement to v is impossible. However, both (121b) and (122b) are ruled out because they violate the condition on inflectional affixes (118):

(122) a. [vp v [vp Adv [vp C+V [CP tc IP ]]]] b. *[VP [ c+V]+v [vp Adv [vp tv [cp tc IP ]]]] Thus, the Case adjacency effects in English receives exactly the same explanation as the obligatoriness of the overt C in a sentential complement in (115b). In this analysis, we no longer need to assume that English has overt object shift. Therefore, none of the problems with Johnson's, Koizumi's, and/or Chomsky's analyses arises. Since there is no overt object shift, we expect that extraction from an object is permitted, and that object-oriented FQs are not licensed. 25 We do not need the projection AgrP or the prohibition against

272


adjunction to AgrP. We do not have to assume, either, that an intervening adverb blocks NP-movement to a Case position, an unnatural assumption Chomsky adopted. The only assumptions needed are the null hypotheses in (120). Condition (118) is also independently motivated by Myers (1984). Hence, we do not need any assumption in order to account for just the Case adjacency effects. 4.3.8.1 No Case Adjacency Effects for Objects in Romance Languages French and Italian allow the V-Adv-Object order, as illustrated here ((123a) is taken from Pollock 1989 and (123b) from Cinque 1995): (123) a. Perdre completement la tete pour les belles etudiantes, c'est to lose completely one's head for pretty students, that's rare. dangerous To lose one's head completely for pretty students, that's dangerous.' b. Hanno aggredito brutalmente 1'Albania, they-have attacked brutally Albania 'They have brutally attacked Albania.' In our system, this fact can readily be related to the fact that in these languages, unlike in English, the head of KP is filled either by an expletive determiner or by some overt element (D or N) moved to that position (cf. sections 2.2 and 2.3). In other words, the well-formedness of (123a-b) in the presence of an overt K is assimilated with the well-formedness of (114b) in the presence of an overt C. As a support for this view, consider (124), which shows that the V-KP sequence is ruled out in Italian if K is not filled by an expletive determiner: (124)

Ho incontrato *(un/il) grande amico di Maria ieri. I-have met a/the great friend of Maria yesterday 'I met a/the great friend of Maria yesterday.' (Longobardi 1994:612)

Here, the precedence of an adjective to the N amico indicates that N has not undergone head-movement to K. Thus, if the head K is null, it must adjoin to the selecting V in order to satisfy its affixal property, though it cannot, since the V undergoes head-movement to v. Hence, in the absence of an overt determiner, the sentence is ruled out. In (125), no overt expletive determiner exists and the V is overtly raised to T. However, the well-formedness of (125) does not undermine our analysis: (125)

Jean embrasse souvent Marie. Jean kisses often Marie 'Jean often kisses Mary.'


273

Romance languages permit overt N-to-K movement, as illustrated by the word order in (126) and the alternation between (127a) and (127b). In (126), the head N precedes the adjectival counterpart of a sentential adverb probably, which is adjoined to DP or D'. In (127b), the head N replaces the expletive determiner in (127a), in a way parallel to the overt V-to-C movement in Germanic SOV languages. In both cases, the head N should be in K: (126) 1' invasion probable de Jupiter (127) a. il mio Gianni 'the my John' b. Gianni mio 'John my'

(French: Valois 1991:159) (Italian: Longobardi 1994)

The null K in (127b) can satisfy its affixal property by the N head adjoined to it. Similarly, in (125), we can assume that the proper name has been raised up to K in overt syntax. Therefore, even if the main verb raises to T, condition (118) is not violated here. In short, (123a-b) and (124) are parallel to (114b), where the C is filled by an overt complementizer, and (125), (126), and (127b) are parallel to the overt V-to-C movement in Germanic SOV languages. 4.3.8.2. No Adjacency Requirement on PP Complements or Genitive Casemarked Complements On the morphological approach to the Case adjacency effects, we can straightforwardly explain the well-formedness of (128a-b) and the contrast in (129): (128) a. John often reads to [KP his children], b. John reads often to [KP his children]. (129) a. *The notoriety resulting from [Kathy's exposing in the Washington Post [ KP Nixon's war crimes]] led to her new assignment, b. The notoriety resulting from [Kathy's exposure in the Washington Post of Nixon' s war crimes] led to her new assignment. (Stowell 1981:110) In (128), KP, whose head is null, is selected by the preposition to. Then, irrespective of whether there is overt verb raising, the null affixal head can attach to the overt preposition and satisfy its affixal property. In (129b), if the preposition of selects KP (Nixon's war crimes), the null K can adjoin to of; if of itself fills K, there is no null affix in the first place. In either case, no violation of condition (118) is involved here. Hence, an adjacency is not required between a verb and its PP complement or between a derived nominal and its object between which of-insertion has taken place. In contrast, the head of the KP complement of the verbal gerund in (129a), in the absence of of-insertion, must satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the selecting N (cf. (252b) in chapter 3). However, the head N is overtly raised to v across a PP. Hence, adjunction of the null K to N here leads to a violation of (118).

274


4.3.8.3. No Adjacency Required between Verbs and Nominal Adjuncts Note that (120a) states that every argumental noun phrase is KP, not that every noun phrase is KP. This assumption is based on Szabolcsi's (1994) suggestion that 'both complementizers and articles are subordinators in that they serve to enable a 'proposition' to act as an argument' (ibid.:181). As for clauses, her suggestion means that TP may be interpreted as a proposition, though it cannot occur in an argument position unless it projects up to CP; small clauses cannot be qualified as an argument, and hence they are not 9 -marked, but their head must be licensed in LF by incorporating into the selecting head and forming a complex predicate. As for noun phrases, the overt article the in English cannot instantiate 'articles' in her statement, because a the-phrase can also occur as a predicate, as in (130) (the in English heads DP in our terms). (130) John considered the accident (to be) [the cause of the riot]. Rather, 'articles' should be exemplified by what we have called 'expletive determiners', following Gueron (1985). Longobardi (1994) and Szabolcsi (1994) show that, in some languages, they are obligatory in noun phrases in an argument position (unless N-raising takes place; see the discussion later in this chapter), whereas they are impossible in the noun phrases in a nonargument position: (131) (132)

E'venuto *(il) vecchio Cameresi. came the older Cameresi (Italian; Longobardi 1994:624) (*Der) Peter, komme! the Peter, come!' (German; Szabolcsi 1994:215)

In (131) il vecchio Cameresi is the internal argument of venuto 'came', and the expletive determiner il cannot be omitted. In contrast, in (132), the noun phrase Peter is in the vocative, and it cannot be introduced by the expletive determiner der. This indicates that nonargument noun phrases are not KP. The implication of this conclusion is that even when a nominal adjunct occurred at the complement of a verb that overtly raises to a higher head position, this would not induce a violation of condition (118). A relevant example is given in (133): (133)

John left Tokyo yesterday.

Suppose, following Larson (1988), that phrase structures are uniformly binary branching and that (133) has a structure as in (134). Then, if the nominal adjunct yesterday were KP, the null K would adjoin to the verb that overtly raises to a higher V in the VP-shell structure so that condition (118) would be violated:


275

(134)

However, if the nominals adjuncts are not KP (headed by the null K) but bare NP or DP, a violation of (118) does not arise in (133), and a sentence like this is correctly ruled in (as for the KP in a noncomplement position like Tokyo in (133), see section 3.8.6). 4.3.8.4 No Case Adjacency Effects in Particle Languages for Case I have accounted for all the previously noticed paradigms relevant to the Case adjacency problem in a simple and elegant way, without requiring unmotivated assumptions or otherwise unnecessary reformulation of core syntactic constraints. This section deals with one additional paradigm relevant to the Case adjacency problem that has occasionally been pointed out but has not been incorporated to the previous theories: the absence of Case adjacency effects in particle languages for Case. In section 2.5, we demonstrated that Case particles uniformly occur in the head position of KP. Given this, it is predicted that these languages lack the Case adjacency effect for the Accusative objects. This prediction is borne out at least in Japanese, Persian, and Hindi:26 (135) a. John-ga kono hon-o Mary-ni ageta (koto) John-Norn this book-Ace Mary-Dat gave fact (Japanese) '*John gave to Mary this book.' b. man Hasan-ra be Ali moa'refi-kardam. I-Nom Hassan-Ace to Ali introduce-Is '*! introduced to Ali Hassan.' (Persian; Browning and Karimi 1994:61) c. adnaan-ne naadyaa-ko bazaar-me dekn-aa. Adnan-Erg Nadya(Fem.)-Acc market(Masc.)-in see-Perf.Masc.Sg '*Adnan saw in the market place Nadya.' (Hindi; Butt 1993:96) Since Japanese, Persian, and Hindi all allow scrambling, these examples show that the direct object can be scrambled to a position non-adjacent to V. In our system, the well-formedness of these examples follows from the fact that the objects in these languages do not involve a null affixal K since K is filled by an overt Case particle. In general, languages that have the particle system of Case are SOV

276


languages (Takano 1996).27The correlation between word order and the presence of the particle system, if correct, may follow from Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), according to which every natural language has the underlying word order of SVO and the so-called SOV languages must have overt object shift to the Spec of some functional head to the left of V. Given the LCA, it can be argued that the object KP in SOV languages must be headed by an overt Case particle because a null K cannot move to V if its maximal projection is moved to the Spec of vP by overt object shift. Consider the following contrast: (136) a. I don't believe [(that) Kay will be elected]. b. [*(That) Kay will be elected], I don't believe. If such an argument is on the right track, it is predicted that in SVO languages in which overt object shift is optionally possible, the K must be filled by some overt element only when the KP undergoes object shift. The following contrast in Chinese seems to bear out this prediction: (137) a. Wo heu guauxin [(*dui) zhe-jian shi deqiyin]. I very care about this-CL matter of cause 'I do care about this matter of cause.' b. Wo f*(dui) zhe-jian shi de qiyin] heu guauxin. (Tsai 1994:223) Since Chinese is a language that lacks overt verb raising, the null K in the object KP in (137a) can affix to the selecting verb. Then, the dummy preposition as the host of the null K is unnecessary, hence impossible for economy theoretic reasons. On the other hand, if the KP that undergoes object shift to the Spec of vP involved the null K, it could not affix to any overt element for the reasons noted earlier. Hence, the K must be filled by a dummy preposition, as in (137b). Although an LCA-based reconsideration of phrase structure and movement phenomena is an interesting issue that has a wide range of consequences, we do not go into the issue here, since that would take us afield from our main concern (see Kayne 1994, Takano 1996 and Ogawa 1996b for an extensive discussion). At first sight, the paradigm of Accusative Case-marker drop in Japanese, as in (139), seems parallel to that of the C-drop in English, as in (138), in that linear adjacency is required between the direct object and the verb: (138) a. I can't believe [(that) John is guilty]. b. [*(That) John is guilty], I can't believe. (139) a. John wa nani (o) tabetano? John Top what (Ace) ate Q 'What did John eat?' b. Nani *(o) John wa tabeta no? The contrast between (139a) and (139b) can receive the same account that is


111

given to the one between (138a) and (138b) if we assume that the null K in (139a) can attach to the verb tabeta 'ate' only if the KP headed by the null K remains in situ. However, we do not adopt this analysis of the paradigm in (139), because the null C is excluded in standard Japanese, whether the CP remains adjacent to the verb or is topicalized (Saito 1983 notes that, in the Kansai dialect of Japanese, the null C is permitted only if the CP is linearly adjacent to the verb, as in (140a) and that this fact is parallel to the paradigm in (139). However, we take it to be more important that the parallelism between clauses and noun phrases does not holds in standard Japanese): (140) a. Boku-wa [John-ga yuuzai da *(to)] omou. I-Top John-Nom guilty Cop Comp think 'I think (that) John is guilty.' b. [John-ga yuuzai da *(to)] boku-wa omou. In chapter 2, we accounted for the paradigm in (140) by assuming that the verb in both the main clause and the embedded clause undergoes overt verb raising, but the verb in the embedded clause does not raise up to C. If the verb raising in Japanese is always obligatory, the null K in (139a) cannot satisfy its affixal property by adjoining to the selecting verb. Suppose that, in Japanese, just as V does not raise to C in clauses, N head does not raise to K in noun phrases. Then, the null K in (139) cannot satisfy its affixal property by the N head, either. Hence, we are forced to assume that the Case-marker drop in (139) is a pure PF phenomenon that is irrelevant to the morphosyntactic licensing of a null affix which we are dealing with here. More specifically, I claim that the phonetically null K in (139a) is created after Morphology and is licensed by phonological merger, which requires strict linear adjacency between an affix and its host. A support for this analysis is that unlike the C-drop in English, the Case-marker drop in Japanese (138) is possible only in colloquial contexts and that it sometimes applies even to a Nominative KP adjacent to a verb, as in (14la) (incidentally, the ill-formedness of (141ax) shows that what is dropped in (141a) is not the Topic marker wa but the Case marker go): (141) a. John wa yoozi (ga) aru mitai yo. John Top business Nom be seem Pit 'John seems to have a business.' a'. *John wa yoozi wa aru mitai yo. b. [*(That) Louise was angry at me] came as no surprise. (Stowell 1981:396) The possibility of ga-drop in (141a) is not expected if there exists a null affixal K in the subject noun phrase, since the null C is not permitted in a clausal subject in English. For these reasons, we conclude that the (Accusative) Case-marker drop in Japanese is not an instantiation of the null affixal K.

278


4.3.8.5 Noun Phrases in Derived Positions The contrast between (142) and (143) appears to be problematic for our analysis: (142) a. b. (143) a. b.

[*(That) Louise was angry at me] came as no surprise. (= (141b)) [*(That) Bill is guilty],, I can't believe t,. (cf. Webelhuth 1989) [His anger] came as no surprise. [His paper]h reviewers of the journal will never accept t,.

Assuming that every finite clause is CP, we can rule out (142a) without the overt C, since the null head of the CP in the subject position must move to the verb but cannot, because of the prohibition against lowering. We have attributed the impossibility of the null C in (142b) to the prohibition against attracting (phrases headed by) a trace (Chomsky 1995:304), under the assumption that the incorporation of the null C to the selecting V leaves a trace in the C-head position. Now, if the subject noun phrase in (143a) and the moved noun phrase in (143b) are KP headed by the null K, the sentence appear to be ruled out for the same reasons as (142a-b) without the overt C. To get around this potential problem without losing our assumption that every argument noun phrase is universally KP, I propose the following derivation of sentences like (143a): (144) a. The Nominative KP is base-generated either in [Spec, v] (when the verb is transitive or unergative) or at the complement of V (when the verb is unaccusative or passive). b. The null head of the subject KP moves out of it and adjoins to T in overt syntax, in order to check off the (Nominative) Case features of itself andT. c. The DP at the complement of the raised K moves to [Spec, T] in order to check off the strong D-feature (i.e., EPP) of T. d. When the T head is phonetically empty, the K+T complex further raises and adjoins to the DP in [Spec, T] to satisfy the affixal property of the null K; when the T head is overt, no additional operation applies. Given this derivation, the final representation of (143a) is schematized as follows:


279

The affixal property of the null K in (143) is satisfied much in the same way as the null interrogative C in a w/z-clause, without violating condition (118). Moreover, neither the prohibition against lowering nor the prohibition against attracting traces is violated at any point in the derivation. Hence, the derivation converges both at PF and LF, and the sentence is ruled in. A similar derivation, as in (146), is given to the sentence in (143b): (146) a. The Accusative KP is base-generated at the complement of V. b. The null head of the object KP moves out of it and adjoins to V in overt syntax, in order to check off the weak (Accusative) Case features of itself and V (and to satisfy its affixal property). c. The DP at the complement of the raised K moves to [Spec, Pol] or [Spec, C] in order to check off the strong operator feature of Pol/C. In this case, the null K adjoined to V does not have to move up further in the overt syntax, since the V head is always overt and can satisfy the affixal property of the null K.28 Then, the representation of (143b) at the point of Spell-Out is structured as in (147):

In (147), condition (118) is not violated, since V remains in situ. The prohibition against attracting traces is not violated, either, since it is DP rather than KP that is moved. Hence, the derivation that generates (143b) converges both at PF and LF. The crucial assumptions that lie behind this explanation are (i) that neither A-movement nor head-movement out of a noncomplement position is constrained by the Subject Condition, and (ii) that the phrases moved by NP-movement in (143a) and Wh-movement in (143b) are both DP in a KP, rather than the entire KP. As for the first assumption, an independent argument for it is provided by den Dikken (1995), who proposes that only A'-movement is constrained by the Subject Condition ((148a-b) are taken from den Dikken 1995:178, and (148c), from den Dikken 1995:13):

280


(148) a. John, seems [AP ti fond of Mary] to you. (A-movement) b. *Whoj does John, seem [AP t, fond of tj] to you? (A'-movement) c. Wa'-hati-nawatst-a'rho' ka'-nowa-ktatie Ronia'te'kowa. AOR-3masc.pl.-mud-placed PERF-carapace-along Great Turtle They placed mud along (the edge of) the Great Turtle's carapace.' (head-movement) (Mohawk) In (148a-b) A- and A'-movement, respectively, have taken place out of the same constituent in a noncomplement position, and the A'-movement is degraded, whereas A-movement is perfectly acceptable. In (148c), the Noun Incorporation (in Baker's 1988 sense) has taken place out of the subject position of a small clause, and the sentence is ruled in. The facts in English and Mohawk suffice to assume that neither A-movement nor head-movement conforms to the Subject Condition (see also van Riemsdijk 1998:658-660 for the data showing that headmovement is free from the Subject Condition). Hence, the extraction of the K and the DP out of the KP in (143)-(144) does not pose a problem. The second crucial assumption is that NP-movement as in (143a) and whmovement as in (143b) are both movement of DP, rather than KP. This assumption is not unreasonable in view of the minimalist theoretic assumption, whether implicit or explicit, that overt NP-movement and wh-movement are triggered by the strong D-feature of T (EPP) and C, respectively. If NPmovement takes place to check a certain D-feature, the moved element should also have a D-feature, and the most unmarked such element is DP. Hence, no problem should arise with the A- or A'-movement of a DP. Hence, the derivation of wh-movement in (147) should be acceptable. Returning to (142a-b), these sentences should be ruled in for the same reasons as (143a-b) if the TP at the complement of the null C can be moved by NP-movement or topicalization: (142) a. [*(That) Louise was angry at me]i came t, as no surprise. b. [*(That) Bill is guilty]i, I can't believe ti. However, (142a-b), without that, can be ruled out on principled grounds. Consider, first, (142a). If the TP at the complement of the C, whether overt or null, is to move, the embedded T must have a D-feature that can be checked against the matrix T. However, even if the embedded T in the moved TP had a Dfeature, it has been checked off by the DP in its Spec (Louise in (142a)) and erased at the point when TP moves, since it is uninterpretable. Then, the movement of the TP for D-feature checking should violate the principle of Last Resort. When that is overtly realized, there is a reason to assume that it has an interpretable D-feature independently of T (cf. Webelhuth 1989). Hence, the movement of a Zto-clause to [Spec, T] is permissible. A similar statement also holds true of topicalization. We are assuming that it is not a cost-free adjunction operation to TP but a substitution operation to [Spec, Pol] in order to check off some operator feature of the functional category Pol by


281

the same feature of the moved element (cf. chapter 2, section 9). Along Chomsky's (1995) suggestions, let us assume that topicalization, a kind of whmovement, is also triggered by a D-feature. Then, in (142b), either CP or TP must have a D-feature. When the C head is null, it has been incorporated to V before Pol can attract the CP. Hence, the CP cannot undergo topicalization because of the prohibition against attracting traces. Therefore, TP can be the only potential 'attractee', which means that TP should have a D-feature. However, as we have just suggested, the embedded TP whose Spec is filled by a subject DP has its (uninterpretable) D-feature already checked off. Therefore, the TP cannot be attracted any more. Actually, we see that when a CP is introduced by that, TP at its complement cannot undergo topicalization: (149)

*[TP Bill is guilty],, I can't believe that ti.

Given the theoretical assumption and the fact in (149), it is reasonable to assume that TP at the complement of C cannot undergo topicalization, which we defines as a movement for D-feature checking. Then, there remains no legitimate derivation of (143b) when the C head is null. For this reason, that is obligatory in (143). Before closing this subsection, let us resolve two potential problems with the present system of licensing the null affixal K in complement and noncomplement positions. Note, first, that if the T to which the null K is adjoined moves to a higher functional head, a violation of condition (118) should ensue. A case potentially problematic in this light comes from the Subject-Aux Inversion phenomena (SAI), as in (150): (150) a. Can John dance? b. Does John eat banana? c. Is John an attorney? Suppose that the SAI involves T-to-C movement and that modals like can heads TP. Then, if the null K is adjoined to T before the T moves to C, the SAI will result in the formation of the complex word [[( K+T]+C]. However, this form does not violate (118), because C is not a derivational affix but an inflectional affix. The same comment also applies to (150c), with the only difference from (150a-b) being that the finite be-verb originates in v, rather than T. In this case, the obtained complex word is [[ K+[v+T]]+C], where both K and v are adjoined to T, and the complex is adjoined to C. C is irrelevant since it is inflectional. The form [ K+[v+T]] does not violate (118), either, since multiple adjunction to (the minimal projection of) a single head never leads to a 'double containment' configuration that could potentially violate (118).29 Hence, (150a-c) are not problematic for our theory. Another potential problem resides in the mechanism of object Case checking. Let us adopt the standard minimalist assumption that the Accusative

282


Case-marked noun phrase at the complement of a transitive verb undergoes LF movement to the checking domain of v (Chomsky 1995:chapter 4). Then, if the noun phrase in question is KP, and if its head is incorporated to the selecting V in overt syntax, the KP can no longer be attracted, since its head is a trace. The DP at the complement of K is irrelevant here, since what is involved here is Case checking rather than D-feature checking. Then, a question appears to arise with respect to how the object noun phrases can be Case checked. This question can be answered under the independently motivated assumptions. First, we are assuming that every Case feature is assigned to K, which overtly incorporates to V if V selects it and if K is null. Second, I have claimed in chapter 3, section 4, that what Case feature V and its direct object have is determined by what functional category selects the V (thus, Accusative if v selects V; Genitive if Nz selects V). Combining these assumptions, let us propose that the Accusative Case checking in English involves the following two steps (cf. also Watanabe 1996): (i) the head of the object KP incorporates to the selecting V (in overt syntax); and (ii) the V+K complex raises to v in LF. The former step is motivated by the checking of the uninterpretable Case feature of K against V, and the latter step by the checking of the uninterpretable Case feature of v against V (which would have a new feature [F] at the point when its Case feature is checked against that of K). If Accusative Case checking is executed in these two steps, there is no need to move the entire KP in LF. Hence, the prohibition against attracting (phrases headed by) traces is irrelevant here. Incidentally, the constraint in question does not prevent a smaller category than KP (headed by a trace) from moving out of it in LF. Thus, Diesing (1992) claims that the presuppositional objects move out of VP in LF, and Kennedy (1997) claims that quantificational objects containing a gap of Antecedent Contained Deletion undergo LF category movement to an IP-adjoined position to avoid the infinite regress problem (May 1985). These claims can be carried over to our theory as far as the movements are defined as movements of QP or DP in sister to K, rather than KP itself. 4.3.8.6 The Notional Subjects of Small Clauses In this section we consider the italicized KPs in the following examples: (153) a. Aaron gave the ring to Joni. b. Aaron gave Joni the ring. c. I found John honest. Though the italicized KPs in (153) are not grammatical subjects but grammatical objects, they enter into a certain relation of predication with the following constituents, in that the small clauses in (153a-c) denote that the ring moves to Joni, that Joni comes to have the ring, or that John is honest. Noting this fact,


283

Rothstein (1983) calls these noun phrases the 'notional subjects' of the predicates that follow them. If the small clauses in question were projection of a lexical head such as P, N or A, and if the KPs in question occupied the Spec of the small clauses, then no technical problem would arise with respect to the licensing of the null affixal K. The latter has only to move to the verb that selects the small clause. Since the head-movement is not ruled by the Subject Condition, the null K can satisfy its affixal property unfailingly. However, there is some reason to assume that the small clauses are the projection of a functional category different from N/A/P and that the italicized KPs have been moved to its Spec in overt syntax. Note that they allow floating quantifiers modifying them, unlike the direct objects at the complement of V: (154) a. b. c. d. e.

I gave the toys all to the children. (Bowers 1993) I gave the kids all some candy ... (Maling 1976:715) I believes the soldiers both to have left. (ibid.:708) We consider the Joneses both unbearably pompous. (ibid.:715) *I called the men all.

Suppose with Doetjes (1992) that FQs (in English) are adverbs base-adjoined to the left of a predicate and must satisfy the following two requirements: (a) being c-commanded by the noun phrases that they modify, and (b) c-commanding a trace of the modified noun phrases. Then, the contrast between (154a-d) and (154e) suggests that while the direct objects at the complement of V remain in situ in overt syntax, the 'notional subjects' of a small clause predicate are overtly moved in its maximal projection. Suppose that the small clause complements in (153) are TP, whose head has a strong D-feature (EPP). Suppose further that, while the head D has an interpretable D-feature, K has only an uninterpretable D-feature (which must be checked by either its incorporation to T, movement of its maximal projection to [Spec, T], or D-to-K movement; which option to choose may vary across languages and language-internally).30In addition to the uninterpretable D-feature, K also has an uninterpretable Case feature, which must be ultimately checked against V. Then, at least two different derivations are a priori conceivable for these sentences, which are described as in (155) and (156): (155) a. The head of the KP in the Spec of the small clause predicate moves to the embedded T overtly in order to check off the strong EPP feature of theT. b. The DP at the complement of the K moves to the embedded [Spec, T]. c. The complex head T+K moves and adjoins to the DP in [Spec, T] in order to satisfy the affixal property of the null K. d. The null K moves to the matrix V in LF in order to check off its Case feature.


284

(156) a. The entire KP moves to [Spec, T] overtly in order to check off the strong EPP feature of T. b. The head of the KP in [Spec, T] moves overtly to the matrix V in order to check the uninterpretable Case features of itself and V and to satisfy its affixal property. Whichever derivation we choose, we can obtain the same word order in (154), where the notional subjects precede the FQs and follow the matrix verbs. However, the derivation in (155) involves a step that is problematic under minimalist guidelines. If K moves to T as in (155a), the movement must be unambiguously triggered by the necessity to check off the strong (uninterpretable) D-feature of T (and of K itself), for the null K is not moving to T in order to satisfy its affixal property (note that the T in a small clause is phonetically empty, and hence is disqualified for a host of the affix). Then, as a result of the movement, the D-features of T and K are erased:

Note also that DP does not have a Case feature that could be checked against K or T. Consequently, the DP-movement in (155b) is not motivated by any morphological requirement other than to provide a host of the null affixal K, and therefore it violates the principle of Last Resort. For these reasons, let us give the derivation in (156) to sentences like (153)-(154). (156) differs from (155) in another respect: the movement of the null K targets the matrix main verb rather than the embedded T. Then, it is predicted that if the main verb moves to the light verb v, it should lead to a violation of (118): (158)

*[[

K+V]+v]

This prediction is borne out by the ill-formedness of (159a-b): (159) a. *Bob put intentionally [all three books on the table]. b. * Aaron gave secretly [the ring to her]. (Koizumi 1995:23) Suppose that the adverbs in question are adjoined to either the matrix VP and that the matrix V is raised to v. Then, we obtain (158), where X is v.31 The derivation shown in (156) is more desirable than that in (155) when we


285

account for the ill-formedness of (159). However, it poses a problem for the whmovement of the notional subjects. If the entire KP is moved to [Spec, T] and if the head K is raised out of it and adjoined to the verb that selects the TP, then the wh -movement of the notional subject must apply to the DP inside the KP in [Spec, T]. This would lead to a violation of the Subject Condition, which constrains A '-movement. This might be able to account for the ill-formedness of (160): ( 1 60)

* Who, did Aaron give t, the ring?

Such an approach is otherwise undesirable, however, since the examples illustrated in (161) are all well-formed: ( 1 6 1 ) a. What, did Aaron give tt to Joni? b. Whatj did Aaron put t, on the table? c. WhOj did you find t, honest? In order to accommodate the well-formedness of (161a-c), the entire KP cannot be moved overtly to [Spec, T]. In other words, when the notional subject of a small clause undergoes wh-movement, the derivation in (155) must be resurrected as the only possible derivation. Therefore, adopting (155), suppose that in deriving (161a-c), the null K overtly incorporates to the null T and the DP at the complement of the null K moves through the embedded [Spec, T] on its way to the matrix [Spec, C] or [Spec, Pol]. Then, we can correctly generate (161a-c), because the movement of the wh-DP to [Spec, T] is an A-movement, which is not constrained by the Subject Condition. Hence, the well-formedness of (161a-c) can be expected. However, the derivation in (155) should be blocked in the absence of overt wh-movement. One question that needs to be addressed here is this: why is it that the principle of Last Resort, by which we blocked the movement of a non-wh-DP in (155b), can be violated if and only if a wh-DP stops by [Spec, T] on its way to move to a higher position? This asymmetry between wh-phrases and non-wh-phrases is not unique to the case at hand but is generally found in the case of object agreement. Consider, first, the following contrast in the possibility of number and gender agreement in French (Kayne 1989): (162) a. les chaises que Paul a repeint(es) 'the chair that Paul has repainted(-fem.pL)' b. Jean a repeint/*repeintes les tables. 'Jean has repainted(*-fem.pl.) the tables.' c. *Jean a les tables repeint/repeintes. Under the assumption that the number and gender agreement is mediated between [Spec, v] and the V that moves to v in overt syntax, the optional agreement in

286


(162a) shows that the overt movement to [Spec, v] is possible for a w/z-object; on the other hand, the impossibility of object agreement in (162b) and of object shift in (162c) shows that a non-wh-object cannot move to [Spec, v] just in order to mediate the object agreement. A similar contrast is also observed in the case of the ECM construction in Romance languages: (163) a. *Jecrois [CP C [IP Jean etre le plus intelligent de tous]]. I believe Jean to-be the most intelligent of all 'I believe Jean to be most intelligent of all.' b. Quel garden, crois tu [CP t'{ C [IP ?, etre le plus intelligent de tous]]? which boy believe you to-be the most intelligent of all 'Which boy do you believe to be most intelligent of all?' In chapter 2, we accommodated this contrast by assuming that the wh-subject in (163b), which ultimately moves to the matrix [Spec, C], can move through the embedded [Spec, C] and pick up the null affixal C, although the same operation is not applicable to a non-wh-subject as in (163a), and, as a result, the null affixal C remains unsaturated and the derivation is to crash at PF. Exploiting these data, let us propose that a phrase can move just in order to satisfy the affixal property of another element by apparently violating the principle of Last Resort only when it ultimately moves to a higher position. Then, the second step in the derivation (155), which is the DP-movement to the embedded [Spec, T] just in order to satisfy the affixal property of the null K, is permissible only when the DP undergoes wh-movement to the matrix [Spec, C/Pol]. If the wh-movement in (161) involves movement of the DP through [Spec, T], then certain interrogative counterparts of (159) should be ruled in even if the matrix adverb follows the matrix verb, since in this case the null affixal K is adjoined not to the matrix V but to the DP that moves through [Spec, T]. This prediction is indeed borne out by the well-formedness of (164a-c): (164) a. What, did Bob put intentionally [ti on the table]? b. What, did Aaron give secretly [ti to her]? c. Whoi do you believe sincerely [ti to be honest]? (cf. Chomsky 1977) 4.3.8.7 The Case Adjacency Effects in For-to Infinitives The only remaining problem concerning the Case Adjacency effects is illustrated by the ill-formedness of the following sentence: (165)

*It is possible for tomorrow Sue to speak French. (Koizumi 1995:28)

In (165) the complementizer for selects TP as its complement and the adverb


287

intervenes between the Case assigner/or and the noun phrase Sue. In our theory, the subject noun phrase is KP, and its head can raise to the overt C without violating condition (118), since the latter clearly does not move further. Hence, we need an independent mechanism to rule out (165). I now suggest that (165) is excluded by semantic selection. Suppose that adjunction to TP is prohibited.32 Then, a pre-TP adverb must be in the Spec of a functional head X. Suppose, following Koizumi (1995:28), that X = Pol (Culicover 1991). Then, the structure of (159) and (165) is schematized as follows: (166)

V/C [PolP Adv [Pol. Pol [TP DP [T T ... ]]]]

Since topicalization is a movement to the Spec of PolP and since it is not allowed in an infinitival complement, it is reasonable to assume that the Pol must s-select the [+finite] T. Then, (165) violates the selectional restriction since the TP is [finite] here. Hence, they are ruled out. In contrast to (165), (167a-c) are ruled in, since the Pol here selects a [+finite] feature of T ((167a-c) are cited from Koizumi 1995:28):33 (167) a. John said that tomorrow Sue will speak French. b. I wonder whether tomorrow Sue will speak French. c. This is the tree which just yesterday I had tried to dig up with my shovel. An alternative way to account for the ill-formedness of (165) is to assume that the for-to infinitive clause is not CP but TP whose subject is PRO controlled by the KP selected by for (cf. Epstein 1984):

Given this structure, it straightforwardly follows that the adverbials such as tomorrow cannot intervene between for and KP. Given this analysis, we need not stipulate that adjunction to TP is prohibited. However, this last assumption might be necessary in order to accommodate the ill-formedness of (169):


288

(169) a. *Will tomorrow Sue speak French? (Koizumi 1995:28) b. *John regretted that Gone with Wind, we went to see. (Watanabe 1993:126) c. *It is likely that Sue, Mary likes. (Hooper and Thompson 1973) d. *The fact that Bill, Mary likes makes John very jealous, (ibid.) I will not choose here between the two alternative analyses. Whichever analysis turns out correct, however, it is clear that the ill-formedness of (165) is not due to the failure to license the null affixal K.34 4.4 Concluding Remarks In this chapter, I have proposed that the maximal projection of every noun phrase (in an argument position) is KP, which is the nominal counterpart of CP (the KP Hypothesis). On this hypothesis, I have claimed three parallelisms between clauses and noun phrases: (170) (171) a. b. (172) a. b.

The Spec of KP/CP can be a landing site for A'-movement. The three phi-features are distributed in a parallel fashion in clauses and noun phrases: [KP K [DP D [Nump Num [sp N ]]]]] [cp C [TP T [vp v [vp V ]]]]] Just as every finite clause is CP, every argumental noun phrase is KP. The null C and the null K are both inflectional affixes.

In addition, we have characterized two more properties of K: (173) a. Expletive determiners and Case particles are base-generated in K. b. K is the landing site of the pronominal shift, the determiner raising in French and Italian, and N-raising in many languages. The proposal in (170) accounted for the Hungarian wh-movement in noun phrases. The proposal in (171) enabled us to account for generalizations on agreement in Standard Arabic and French. We provided independent justification for each of the proposals in (173). After developing these hypotheses, I have proposed a new explanation for the Case adjacency problems. I have started my discussion by critically reviewing the three previous approaches to the Case adjacency problems, Johnson's (1991), Koizumi's (1995), and Chomsky's (1995). We have shown that these approaches are all crucially dependent on the core syntactic and/or semantic devices such as a prohibition against adjunction to AgrP or MLC, and problematic in both empirical and conceptual respects. I then moved on to provide a radical alternative to them that focuses on certain differences in the morphological


289

realization of a certain head in a noun phrase. Specifically, I have pointed to the similarity between the Case adjacency paradigm and a cross-linguistic paradigm with respect to the morphological realization of the functional head C and sought a unified solution to the two paradigms, attributing the core cases of the Case adjacency paradigm to a violation of the condition on inflectional affixes. At the same time, we have factored out miscellaneous data that were subsumed under the 'Case adjacency effects': (i) some are ruled out by condition (118) because of the null affixal K;35 (ii) others are ruled out by the interaction of the selectional restriction on Pol and the prohibition against adjunction to TP; (iii) subject noun phrases and moved noun phrases in English are exempt from the Case adjacency condition because the complement of K is allowed to move to [Spec, T/Pol/C] independent of the overt incorporation of the null K into a certain higher head, an operation unavailable to the TP complement of C. Essentially, my approach to the Case adjacency problems is 'morphological' in that it is crucially based on the postulation of the null affixal head in a noun phrase and a condition on null (inflectional) affixes. I have demonstrated that the Case adjacency effects do not occur when there is an overt realization of K, such as another head overtly raised to K, expletive determiners, Case particles, or the dummy Case-marker of. Since the distribution of the noun phrases headed by the null K is almost identical to that of the clauses headed by the null C, our assimilation of the two paradigms is at least worth considering seriously. The hierarchical parallelism between (171a) and (171b) is reminiscent of Grimshaw's (1991) 'extended projection.' In her analysis, both clauses and noun phrases are assumed to be three-layered: the clausal extended projection is CP-IPVP; the nominal one is PP-DP-NP. The addition of vP and NumP is compatible with her analysis. However, we disagree with her in that the nominal functional category that corresponds to C is not P but K. Recall that in our system P can take KP in its complement in (128) and (129). If this is correct and if we pursue a strict parallelism between clauses and noun phrases, we expect that P can also select CP. This prediction is borne out by the following examples in English, Icelandic, and Spanish: (174) a. the examination of [what they bought] b. Jon var aShugsa um [a5 Maria vaeri Ifklega farin]. John was thinking about that Maria had probably gone 'John was thinking about the fact that Maria has probably gone.' (Thrainsson 1979:25) c. la seguridad de [que Ana va a hacerlo bien] the certainty of that Ana is-going to do-it well 'the certainty that Ana is going to do it well' (Plann 1986:135) These facts show that P can select CP in some (limited) environments. This constitutes the fourth parallelism between clauses and noun phrases (see also Ouhalla 1991:chapter 4, who proposes that C is a nominalizer).

290


Another parallelism which we can add to (170), (171), and (172) is that another functional projection can be generated between CP/KP and TP/DP. We have suggested in section 2.3 that when a universal quantifier (UQ) modifies DP, it appears in the head of QP that selects the DP. And we have suggested in section 3 that a sentential adverb that precedes the subject is in the Spec of PolP and that the Spec can also be used as the landing site of topicalization. Q and Pol are similar in that they are both optional categories and that they commonly have to do with 'quantification over some referential element.' Thus, a sentential adverb quantifies over some event, and a UQ quantifies over some individual. If this reasoning is correct, the fact that QP and PolP are higher than DP and TP, respectively, may be motivated on semantic grounds. Still another parallelism between clauses and noun phrases has to do with adjunction. We have assumed that a sentential adverb in English cannot adjoin to TP and pointed out in note 32 that its adjectival counterpart in English cannot adjoin to DP: (175) a. *[CP C (for) [TP probably [TP John to win the race]]] b. *[KP K [DP probable [DP the invasion of individual privacy]]] Whatever reason lies behind the ill-formedness of these examples, this parallelism between verbal and nominal projections is not surprising in our framework. On the other hand, we have not been able to perfectly unify the two projections. First, while there seems to be no overt complementizer that incorporates to the selecting head in overt syntax, there seem to be overt instances of K that can/must incorporate to the selecting head in overt syntax. We have assumed that overt determiners in Romance languages are realizations of K. Given this, the forms such such au (a + le), aux (a + les), du (de + le) ,and des (de + les) in (176) may be analyzed as instances of overt incorporation of K to P. (176) a. voyage au Canada (au ordinal > quality > size > shape > color). Then, the relative order among them will be uniquely determined even if we do not stack six APs in a single noun phrase. We are also free from a conceptual problem with his analysis that has to postulate scmantically vacuous lexical categories that are necessary only to host a modifier AP in their Specs. Second, he notes that there exists a clear limit on the number of noncoordinated attributive APs within DP (apparently not exceeding six or seven), and argues that there is no principled reason for this limit in the adjunction hypothesis. However, his generation-in-Spec hypothesis of APs faces the same problem if, as he notes, there are eight different classes of APs that can


293

modify a concrete nominal (Cinque 1995:298). Third, he argues that under the adjunction hypothesis, but not under the generation-in-Spec hypothesis, the fact that APs are to the left of the head has to be stipulated. However, if we adopt Kayne's (1994) LCA, we can rule out right-adjunction in a principled fashion. Fourth, based on Giusti's (1992) observation that in Romanian, where APs can move to the Spec of DP, demonstratives block the movement of attributive APs lower than them, while they do not block movement of N past them, Cinque argues that this asymmetry between AP-movement and N-movement is reduced to the Relativized Minimality if we assume that APs are in a Spec position. However, as he notes, this analysis predicts that a manner (or subject-oriented) AP cannot move to the Spec of DP crossing a speaker-oriented AP, contrary to fact. Then, there remains no motivation for the generation-in-Spec hypothesis of APs. 4. In Italian and French, the derived nominal (V+Nz in our terms) has been raised to a position higher than Nz and lower than D, as in cases like (8). This conclusion is derived from the relative ordering between the thematic adjective, the derived nominal, and the size AP. Consider (ia-b): (i) a. b.

la sola grande invasione italiana dell'Albania the single big invasion Italian of Albania *l'invasione sola grande italiana dell'Albania

(Cinque 1995:290)

Since both the adjectives sola and grande are elements in the Spec of NumP, the derived nominal in (i) has not been raised to D. However, since it precedes the thematic adjective, that is, the external argument of Nz, it does not remain in Nz. Then, between Nz and D there must be another functional head to which the derived nominal is raised overtly. We do not attempt to identify the label of the category in question, however. 5. Among others, Giorge and Longobardi (1991) argue that the Italian possessive is a (non-argumental) adjective. Munn (1997) argues that nonidiomatic modificational possessives such as woman's in (i) or men's in (ii) originates in an NP-adjoined position and moves in overt syntax to the Spec of a functional category between DP and NP (which he takes to be either AgrP or NumP): (i) That was a real woman's movement she made, (ii) Pierre Cardin's men's clothing His claim means that there are at least two different positions for possessive NP licensing. If either of their claims is right, our argument for KP based on the Italian fact is considerably weakened, if not falsified. 6. The following fact may also support the view that the possessor DP (in Italian) originates in the Spec of DP, rather than NumP or NP (Cinque 1995:294): (ii) le sue due altre probabili goffe reazioni immediate alia tua lettera the his two other probable clumsy reactions immediate to your letter Here, the four APs, that is, the subject-oriented AP, the speaker-oriented AP, and the two numeral APs, are hierarchically arranged in this order above N, which has been raised to Num, and the possessor is higher than all the APs. Hence, (ii) should have the following structure:


294

(iii) [KP K (le) [DP sue [D. due [D. altre[NumPD [N_P probable [ Nunp clumsy [Num. N+Num [Np immediate [ N p f N PP ]]]]]]]]]] 7. As for the ill-formedness of (i), we can carry over Abney's (1987) solution to it: (i) * John's/his the book (ii) Agr in D° cannot co-occur with a lexical article. Since the D in (i) has some agreement feature to be checked against the possessor, the overt determiner cannot appear in this environment. See Siloni (1991) for an extension of (ii) to account for the impossibility of an overt determiner in the construct state construction in Hebrew (cf. also Ritter 1991). 8. Longobardi (1994) points out that in Catalan and Frisian, there are two morphologically distinct forms for definite articles and pure expletive articles. 9. Although one might assume that the pronominal is base-generated in D ('K' in our system), rather than raised to this position (cf. Postal 1969, Longobardi 1994), there is no strong reason to suppose so. Rather, in view of the fact that each pronominal has a particular morphological specification for the phi-features concerning person, gender, and number, it is more reasonable to assume, as in the text, that it is base-generated in N and, in its way to K, picks up (or check) relevant phi-features on the functional categories that lie between N and K. 10. In French, the gender and number features of a noun are manifested on the determiner that selects it. Thus, the definite determiners le, la, and les select nouns with <masculine, -pl>, , and features, respectively. In Modern Hebrew, the gender and number features are morphologically represented on the inflection of nouns, as shown in Ritter (1991:51): (iii)

Feminine Masculine

Singular -et, -it, -a(t) —

Plural -ot -im

This paradigm also shows that the two features are those of nouns. 11. Since all the nonpronominal Ns are invariably third person, this D also invariably has a third person feature. It is meaningless to license an invariable feature by checking. Hence, we take it as 'inactive.' In fact, the third person singular marker is morphologically simplest and behaves like a default feature in many languages. For the same reason, it may also be the case that with the third person pronominals, the person feature of D is inert. See Kayne (1993). We are neutral about whether to include humanness feature to formal features. Morphological agreement in humanness is, if not familiar, observed in a couple of languages including Japanese (Kishimoto 1996), Finnish (Vainikka 1989), and Spanish (Chomsky 1988). 12. Vikner (1997:200) presents the following generalization on the correlation between V-to-I movement and the finite morphology of regular verbs: (i)

An SVO-language has V°-to-I° movement if and only if... a.... tense morphology never occurs without person morphology b.... person morphology is found in all tenses.


295

If T has a set of a person and tense features, as we are claiming in the text, the existence of such correlation as Vikner observes is not surprising. 13. Recall our assumption that what sublabel(s) of a complex head can enter into checking relation can vary across languages. In fact, Arabic differs from French in that with the S VO order, the verb agrees with the subject in all of person, number and gender. 14. After the V+v+T complex has its gender feature checked against the raised feature of K, it still keeps the number features of V and v and the *person feature of T. However, the *person feature of T need not be checked as far as it is third person singular, and the number features of V and v can be checked against each other since V is in the checking domain of v. Therefore, once its gender feature is checked against the raised K, the derivation converges at LF. 15. See Fassi Fehri (1989) for an alternative account of the paradigms in [B] and [E], and Siloni (1991) and Ritter (1991) for an explanation of similar paradigms in Hebrew. 16. Thus, Japanese is a rigid head-final language, and every head-like element, including Case particles, follows its complement. See Tomisawa (1994) for the analysis of a Case particle in Japanese as the head of KP which selects DP as its complement. We make the same claim on the basis of different examples in section 2.5.2. 17. A piece of evidence for this assumption is that in Hebrew, which is syntactically quite similar to SA, the determiner, which usually occurs between the UQ and the N, as in (ia), appears to the left of the UQ when there is no such overt N, as in (ib): (i) a. b.

kol ha-gdud 'all the boys-masc.sg.' ha-kol '(lit.) the-all (everything)' (Ritter 1991:57)

Arguably, ha in (ia) is in the Spec of DP and ha in (ib) is adjoined to the left of the UQ (that heads QP) because of its proclitic nature. 18. Every and all differ in the possibility of licensing ellipsis, too. The example in (i) is taken from Lobeck (1991:298): (i)

Not all of the candidates came to the party, but [all/*every [e] who did] talked to Mary.

The same asymmetry holds between subete and subete-no in Japanese: (ii) Daitai-no hon-ga ureta ga, [subete/*subete-no [e]]-wa ure-nak-katta. most-Gen book-Nom was-sold but all/*every-Gen -Top be sold-Neg-Past 'Although most of the books were sold out, all/*every of them were not.' As for every, see also Postma and Rooryck's (1996) interesting distinction between what they call 'existential' every and 'intentional' every. They argue that, while the former is of the category A, the latter is of the category D+A. 19. Though irrelevant for our purposes, subete can also be used as a floating quantifier as in (i): (i)

Gakusei-ga (kinou) subete kita. student-Nom yesterday all came

20. See Shlonsky (1991) for the possibility of the DP movement in Hebrew, as shown in (ib):

296 (i) a. b.

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections kol/*kul-am ha-yeladim all/*all-3masc.sg. the boys 'all the boys' ha-yeladim kul-am/*kol the-boys all-3masc.sg./*all

21. By 'Case assignment,' he means 'structural Case assignment.' Cases are divided into two classes: structural Cases and inherent Cases. Structural Cases are Nominative and Accusative Cases, whereas inherent Cases are Genitive and Oblique Cases. 22. Another problem with the adjacency condition on structural Case assignment, as pointed out by Johnson (1991), is that there is no adjacency condition involved on the assignment of Nominative Case to subjects. If Comp or Infl assigns Nominative Case to the subject under the adjacency requirement, either (ia) or (ib) should be ruled out. However, they are both well-formed: (i) a. b.

I know that probably Gary had left, Gary probably has left.

See also Koizumi (1995:chapter 2) for conceptual problems for the adjacency condition. 23. See Koizumi (1993,1995) for other problems with Johnson's analysis. 24. Koizumi (1993; 1995) argues that French has overt verb raising to VI or T and no overt object shift; hence, VP-adverbs can intervene between a verb, whether finite or nonfmite, and an object. I agree with him in this respect. 25. See also Ogawa (1996b) for other arguments that neither English nor French has overt object shift. 26. Scrambling is also limited to SOV languages and overt object shift languages and it is not allowed in SVO languages without overt object shift; see Ogawa (1996b) for an account of this generalization. See also Fukui (1993) and Takano (1996:chapter 2) for the issue. 27. Unlike Kayne (1994), Takano (1996:chapter 2) proposes that SOV is the basic word order and that the SVO order is derived by head-movement of the V to a higher functional head position. He cannot accommodate the paradigm in (135), since it means in his analysis that the dummy preposition is required if and only if the V remains in situ, although there is no natural way to account for this statement. 28. Under the Case Theory we are assuming, v as well as V is also involved in the Accusative Case feature checking. This assumption can be made compatible with the statement in (146b) if we assume that V, v, and K share the same type of Case feature, that as a result of the K-to-V movement the Case feature of K is checked and erased, though the Case feature of V is only checked but not erased, and that only after V moves to v at LF are the Case features of V and v (checked and) erased. This system of Case checking is essentially identical to Watanabe's (1993, 1996) Three Layered Case Theory, though they differ in some technical details. 29. Note that what is ruled out by (118) is a configuration in which an inflectional suffix is contained in the minimal projections of a derivational affix. 30. Koji Fujita (personal coommunication) points out that the arbitrariness of the mechanism of K's affixation (including its triggers and targets) may induce the undesirable consequence of indeterminacy of the optimal derivation. This point is illustrated by the following example:

The Komplementizer in Noun Phrases (i)

297

John Tl seems [(?") T2 = to be likely [(t') T3 = to [(i) win]]]

In Chomsky's (1995) theory, the derivation of (i) involves the successive cyclic movement of the DP John through [Spec, T3] and [Spec, T2] to [Spec, Tl]. In each step, the strong D-feature (and the Case feature) of T is checked off, and there is only one convergent derivation for (i). On the other hand, given that the KP Hypothesis is valid, and that the null K is required to affix to some overt category, there are three potential targets: Tl, T2, and T3. Since K is originally introduced as the bearer of a Case feature, the K that selects John must ultimately be affixed to Tl, which is the only position where its Case feature can be checked off. However, if K can also enter into D-feature checking optionally, as we have assumed in the text, then it can also affix to T3. Then, adjunction to T3 would be the optimal target, since it makes the shortest possible movement. At this point, we have to ask which derivation is optimal, (i) the one that satisfies all the morphological requirements (Case checking and D-feature checking, and its affixal property) at the same time (thus, satisfying the Multiple Checking Principle) but violates the Shortest Movement Condition (SMC), or (ii) the one that involves a step that satisfies only two of the three independent morphological requirements (i.e., D-feature checking and the requirement on affixes) and also the SMC. Although such indeterminacy of the optimal derivation have to be ultimately overcome, I leave this problem for future research. 31. Two comments may be in order here about the following contrast: (i) a. John sincerely believes {Mary to be smart], b. *John believes sincerely [Mary to be smart]. We have been assuming that the ECM complements are CP headed by the null C. Then, without taking into account the null K that heads the italicized noun phrase, (ib) is ruled out by (118), since the V to which the null C is adjoined moves to a higher functional head position here. As for (ia), the null K in the notional subject can be satisfied in the following way: (ii) a. It moves-out of the KP in [Spec, T] and adjoins to the null C. b. The two null affixes K and C amalgamated in this way is reanalyzed as a single affix. c. The reanalyzed null affix moves to the matrix V that selects the ECM clause. See chapter 2 for claim that (lib) is just one instance of the general process of null affix amalgamation. 32. An indirect support for this assumption is that no adjective can be adjoined to DP, which is the nominal counterpart of TP: (i)

*probable the invasion of individual privacy (cf. the probable invasion of individual privacy)

(i) is ill-formed since PolP is absent in a noun phrase. 33. Not all finite clauses can contain PolP, since there may be a class of Cs that cannot s-select PolP. See chapter 2, section 9.4.3, for relevant discussion. 34. See Rizzi (1997) for a rather interesting alternative account of (165), (167), and

298


(169a) by a fine-grained CP system in a way compatible with our overall theory. His point is that the contrast in grammaticality between them is not the matter of whether the verbs are finite or nonfinite but the matter of whether the embedded subject is in the nominative or other Cases. 35. By (118), we have accounted for the fact that the infinitivized verbs in Hungarian and the verbs of the past perfective aspects in Edo, both of which have an overt suffixation to a verb, cannot license the null C in their complement. The same account can be extended to the fact that a derived nominal cannot license the null C in its complement. It is, however, obviously too restrictive to apply (118) to all affixes in natural language since the participial and gerundive forms of verbs in English can license the null C: (ii) a. John is believing (that) Mary is smart, b. John's believing Mary to be smart We are therefore led to assume that these inflected forms in English are derived in the lexicon (rather than in the syntax) and that no verb raising is necessary (if not excluded) in overt syntax. This assumption is subsumed under my suggestion that V-to-v raising has to do with 'verbalization' of the following (nonverbal) predicate and that the verbalization is always postponed until LF in English.

5

Conclusion

One of the most significant ideas put forth in the history of generative grammar is that the syntactic structures of a clause and a noun phrase can be subsumed under an abstract phrase structure schema which we now call 'X'-theory'. During the past two decades, the basic idea has been implemented in different forms, thanks to the elaboration of the X'-theory, its extension to functional categories, and the emergence of the bare phrase structure theory, though the idea itself has been left unchanged. In this book, maximally generalizing the basic idea, I have proposed that verbal and nominal projections are parallel in every respect, except for the parametric values of the functional categories that constitute them. The proposed hypothesis, which we may call 'the maximal correspondence hypothesis', formally states that given the hierarchically ordered set of categories that constitute a clause and the independently defined set of categories that constitute a noun phrase, then n = k and for any i (1 i n), C. and C'. share some morphosyntactic property. (More specifically, I have proposed that n = k = (maximally) 5). I have demonstrated that combination of this hypothesis with only a few independently motivated, category-neutral devices provides us with a unified explanation to a wide range of morphosyntactic properties of nouns (or noun phrases) and verbs (or clauses) in many languages, which have been partially recognized but not systematically organized or even related. 299

Conclusion

300

In chapter 2, we argued that the ECP-based approaches to the distribution of null complementizers (e.g., Kayne 1981) are unsatisfactory not only on conceptual grounds, because they are bound to the stipulation that Vs but not Ns can govern inside their complements, but also on empirical grounds, because they cannot account for the fact that verbs in many languages other than English cannot license the null C in their clausal complement. We have demonstrated that, once we assume that every finite clause is CP, that the null C is universally affixal, and that formation of an event nominal involves syntactic verb raising to a nominalizing functional category ('the syntactic nominalization hypothesis'), then the impossibility of the null C in the complement of verbs in many languages and derived nominals in English is unificationally linked to the presence or absence of overt verb raising. Since this generalization can be explained by a categoryneutral condition on (null) inflectional affixes and independently attested parameters on V-raising, we have cleared one significant hurdle toward the unification of verbal and nominal projections. Our solution to the limited distribution of the null C was supported by the generalization that if the null C is impossible in the finite indicative complement to a verb, the verb is overtly raised to a higher functional category, the fact that wh-movement of the embedded subject enables the ECM construction in Romance (Kayne 1984), and the fact that wh-in-situ languages have overt particles for yes-no questions (Cheng 1991), among others. In chapter 3, we developed the following two hypotheses extensively: (i) derived (event) nominals are formed in syntax by overt verb raising to a nominalizing functional head (the syntactic nominalization hypothesis), and (ii) the hypothesis that the clausal complement of a nominal, when interpreted as an appositive modifier to it, moves to [Spec, D] in LF in order to check its uninterpretable V-feature. Interaction of the hypothesis (i) with the condition on (null) inflectional affixes accounted for the generalization that event nominals cannot license the null C in their complement. Interaction of the hypothesis (ii) with the principle (iii) that moved categories cannot be headed by traces (cf. Chomsky 1995:chapter 4) accounted for the generalization that result nominals and simple nominals cannot license the null C in their complement. The hypothesis (i) was motivated by the fact that a simple event nominal (SEN) can take a sentential complement that is interpreted as its internal argument and the fact that triadic verbs such as ditransitive verbs and speech act verbs, which cannot be nominalized without an overt preposition in a particular position, are not permitted in overt verb raising languages without an overt preposition in the same position. The hypothesis (ii) was built on Kayne's (1994) insight on nonrestrictive relative clauses and on the fact that nouns that head the modal construction in English (such as make the claim) can license the null C in their complement clauses (Ross 1986). The principle (iii) was independently needed to account for the fact that CPs topicalized or passivized from the complement of Vs cannot be headed by the null C. Moreover, the interaction of the hypotheses (i) and (ii) enabled us to make an MLC-based account for Stowell's (1981) observation that event nominals cannot take a sentential complement and that

301

A Unified theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections

sentential complements to nonevent nominals are interpreted as modifiers in apposition to them. Importantly, the proposed solutions to the problems at issue need no stipulation that distinguishes between the two categories N and V, and hence we have achieved unification of verbal and nominal projections. In chapter 4, we achieved two more cases of unification by proposing that noun phrases are maximal projections of K(omplementizer) and that, just like the null C, the null K is an inflectional affix. The former proposal was motivated by a number of empirical facts, including NP-internal w/z-movement in Hungarian, the pronominal shift in various languages, and the position of Case particles in languages that have them. The latter proposal, in conjunction with the condition on (null) inflectional affixes, enabled us to provide a new solution to the so-called Case adjacency effect in English and its absence in languages that utilize expletive determiners or a system of Case particles. Our approach to it is essentially to relate the presence or absence of the Case adjacency effect to a certain difference in internal structure of noun phrases. We have shown that our (morphological) approach to the issue has a number of advantages over Koizumi's (1995) (semantic) approach to it and Chomsky's (1995) (syntactic) approach. Throughout this book, we have been concerned mainly with the morphophonological realization of 'complementizer' (a cover term for both C and K) and its relevance to the syntactic distribution of their maximal projections (i.e., clauses and noun phrases). I believe that the very existence of 'complementizer' in clauses and noun phrases distinguishes them from other categories, such as AP and PP, and has something to do with their argumenthood and/or referentiality. Little has been understood about the semantic contributions of complementizers, and some linguists have even suggested that complementizers have no semantic contribution (Boskovic 1995; Doherty 1997). However, we have provided sufficient arguments that (i) all finite indicative clauses are CPs without V-to-C movement, whose category is nominal (Webelhuth 1989, Ouhalla 1991), (ii) all subjunctive clauses are CPs with V-to-C movement, whose category is verbal (Webelhuth 1989), and (iii) all controlled infinitive clauses are IP, which is an extended projection of V (Grimshaw 1991). If these arguments are valid, the finite indicative clauses are to be distinguished from subjunctive and controlled infinitive clauses in terms of whether they are nominal or verbal. And it seems generally to be the case that finite clauses denote the real world knowledge of either the subject of the selecting predicate or the speaker of the sentence, whereas subjunctive and controlled infinitive clauses have something to do with irrealis. Therefore, at first brash, it is not implausible to find some correlation between the syntax and semantics of various kinds of clauses, though trying to construct a formal theory that correlates the forms and meanings of clauses is far beyond the scope of this monograph. Hence, I close this monograph by pointing out my hope that what we have clarified about the syntax and morphology of complementizers helps us understand a little more about their semantic properties.

References Abbrebiations of the names of journals BLS CLS NELS WCCFL

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley, California Papers from Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford

Abney, Steven (1987). The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Adger, David (1996). Aspect, Agreement and Measure Phrases in Scottish Gaelic. In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts, 200-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, Cynthia (1980). Movement and Deletion in Old English. Linguistic inquiry 11, 261-323. Amber, Maria Manuela (1994). 'Aux-to-COMP' and Lexical Restrictions on Verb Movement. In Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, edited by Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini, 1-24. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Anderson, Mona (1979). Noun Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Anderson, Mona (1983). Prenominal Genitive NPs. The Linguistic Review 3, 1-24. Androutsopoulou, Antonia (1994). The Distribution of the Definite Determiner and the Syntax of Greek DPs. CLS 30,16-30. Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein, David Lightfoot, and Amy Weinberg (1987). Two Types of Locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 537-577. Authier, Marc (1992). Iterated CPs and Embedded Topicalization. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 329-336. Awbery, G. M. (1990). Dialect Syntax: A Neglected Resource for Welsh. In Syntax and Semantics 23: The Syntax of Modem Celtic Languages, edited by Randall Hendrick, 1-25. San Diego: Academic Press. Bach, Emmon (1986). The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9,1-16. Baker, Mark (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 302

References

303

Bakovic, Eric (1997). Complementizers, Faithfulness and Optimality. Ms., Rutgers Optimality Archive. Barker, Chris (1991). Possessive Descriptions. A postscript version of his Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Bayer, Josef (1983). Comp in Bavarian Syntax. The Linguistic Review 3, 209-274. Bean, Marian C. (1983). The Development of Word Order Patterns in Old English. London: Croom Helm. Belletti, Adriana (1990). Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. Besten, Hans den (1983). On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules. In On the Formal Syntax ofWestgermania, edited by Werner Abraham, 47-131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bittner, Maria, and Kenneth Hale (1996a). The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27,1-68. Bittner, Maria, and Kenneth Hale (1996b). Ergativity: Toward a Theory of a Heterogeneous Class. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531-604. Bland, Susan Kesner (1985). The Action Nominal in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Bobaljik, Jonathan (1994). What Does Adjacency Do? MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22,1-32. Booij, Geert (1992). Morphology, Semantics and Argument Structure. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, edited by I. M. Roca, 47-64. Dordrecht: Foris. Borgman, D. (1989). Sanuma. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 2, edited by D. Derbyshire and G. Pullum, 15-248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Borsley, Robert and Maria Luisa Rivero (1994). Clitic Auxiliaries and Incorporation in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, 373-422. Boskovic, Zeljko (1994). Selection and Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements. Ms., University of Connecticut. Boskovic, Zeljko (1995). Principles of Economy in Nonfinite Complementation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Boskovic, Zeljko (1996). Selection and Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 269-304. Bouchard, Denis (1995). The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bowers, John (1993). The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656. Browning, Marguerite (1996). CP Recursion and That-t Effects. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 237-255. Browning, Marguerite, and Ezat Karimi (1994). Scrambling to Object Position in Persian. In Studies on Scrambling: Movement & Non-Movement Approaches to Free WordOrder Phenomena, edited by Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 61-100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Burzio, Luigi (1987). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Butt, Miriam (1993). Object Specificity and Greement in Hindi/Urdu. CLS 29, 89-103. Carlson, Greg, and Thomas Roeper (1980). Morphology and Subcategorization: Case and the Unmarked Complex Verb. In Lexical Grammar, edited by Teun Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst, and M. Moortgat. Dordrecht: Foris. Cheng, Lisa (1991). On the Typology of Wh-questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Choe, Hyon Sook (1987). An SVO Analysis of VSO Languages and Parametrization: A

304

References

Study of Berber. In Studies in Berber Syntax, edited by Guerssel and Kenneth Hale. Lexicon Project Working Paper, Center for Cognitive Science, M1T. Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1970). Remarks on Nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by Rooderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum, 184-221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company. Chomsky, Noam (1972). Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1977). On Wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, edited by Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71-132. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1986a). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1991). Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, edited by Robert Freidin, 417-475. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1993). A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In The View from Building 20, edited by Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1994). Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1998). Minimaist Inquiries: the Framework. Ms., MIT. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik (1977). Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425-504. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik (1991). Principles and Parameter Theory. Ms., MIT and University of Connecticut. Chung, Sandra (1990). VP's and Verb Movement in Chamorro. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 559-620. Cinque, Guglielmo (1990). Type of A '-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (1995). Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, Chris (1997). Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Culicover, Peter (1991). Polarity, Inversion, and Focus in English. Proceedings of the 1991 Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 46-68. Culicover, Peter (1992). The Adverb Effect: Evidence against ECP Accounts of the That-t Effect. MELS 23, 97-111. DeHaan, German, and Fred Weerman (1986). Finiteness and Verb Fronting in Frisian. In Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, edited by Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn, 77-110. Dordrecht: Foris. Deprez, Viviane (1993). On the Role of Agreement for Government. WCCFL 11, 148-160. den Dikken, Marcel (1995). Panicles. New York: Oxford University Press. Diesing, Molly (1990). Verb Movement and the Subject Position in Yiddish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 41-80. Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Diesing, Molly, and Eloise Jelinek (1995). Distributing Arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3, 123-176.

References

305

Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria (1996). X' Selection. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, edited by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 77-107. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1993). The Syntax of Romanian: Comparative Studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Doetjes, Jenny (1992). Rightward Floating Quantifiers Float to the Left. The Linguistic Review 9, 313-332. Doherty, Cathal (1997). Clauses without Complementizers: Finite IP-Complementation in English. The Linguistic Review 14,197-220. Emonds, Joseph (1978). The Verbal Complex V'-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151-175. Endo, Yoshio (1995). Stage/Individual-level Nouns. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 83-99. Epstein, Samuel David (1984). Quantifier-Pro and the LF Representation of PROarb. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 499-505. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1973). On the Nature of Island Constraints. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Evers, Arnold (1975). The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York. Fabb, Nigel (1984). Syntactic Affixation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Fabb, Nigel (1988). English Suffixation Is Constrained Only by Selectional Restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 527-539. Pagan, Sarah M. B. (1988). The English Middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 181-203. Fagan, Sarah M. B. (1992). The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader (1989). Generalized IP Structure, Case, and Word Order. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 75-111. Fellbaum, Christiana (1989). On the 'Reflexive Middle' in English. CLS 21, 123-132. Fodor, Jerry A., and Jerrold Katz (1964). The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Freeze, Ray (1992). Existentials and Other Locatives. Language 68, 553-595. Fujita, Koji (1994). Case Checking and a Theory of LF Binding. Studies in English Literature 70, 149-70. Fukui, Naoki (1986). A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Fukui, Naoki (1993). Parameters and Optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 399-420. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Giuseppe Longobardi (1991). The Syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, Parameters and Empty Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Giusti, Giuliana (1992). La Sintassi dei Sintagmi Nominali Quantificati. Ph.D. dissertation, Universities of Venice and Padua. Gray, D. (1985). The Oxford Book of Late Medival Prose and Verse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green, Georgia M. (1974). Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. Greenberg, Joseph (1963). Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the

306

References

Order of Meaningful Elements. In Universals of Languages, edited by Joseph Greenberg, 58-90. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane (1979). Complement Selection and the Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279-326. Grimshaw, Jane (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane (1991). Extended Projection. Ms., Brandeis University. Grosu, Alexander (1988). On the Distribution of Genitive Phrases in Rumanian. Linguistics 26, 931-949. Grosu, Alexander, and Julia Horvath (1984). The GB Theory and Raising in Rumanian. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 358-353. Gu6ron, Jacqueline (1985). Inalienable Possession, PRO-Inclusion and Lexical Chains. In Grammatical Representation, edited by Jacqueline Gueron, Hans-Georg Obnauer, and Jean-Yves Pollock, 43-86. Dordrecht: Foris. Guifoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis (1992). Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects in Austronesian Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 375-414. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser (1993). On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building 20, edited by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53-109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1993). Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from Building 20, edited by Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 117-176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Harley, Heidi (1995). Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Harris, Zellig S. (1957). Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure. Language 33, 293-340. Reprinted in Fodor and Katz (1964). Haspelmath, Martin (1989). More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity, edited by Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky, 87-111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hazout, Ilan (1995). Action Nominalizations and the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 355-404. Hegarty, Mihael (1992). Adjunct Extraction and Chain Configurations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Heim, Irene (1988 [1982]). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. New York: Garland Publishing. Hetzron, R. (1978). On the Relative Order of Adjectives. In Language Universals, edited by H. Seiler, 165-184. Tubingen: G. Narr. Higginbotham, James (1980). Pronouns and Bound Variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679-708. Hiltunen, R. (1983). The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English Phrasal Verb. Turku: Turun Yliopisto. Holmberg, Anders (1986). Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, Anders, and Christer Platzack (1988). On the Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 42, 25-42. Hooper, Joan B. (1975). On Assertive Predicates. In Syntax and Semantics 4, edited by John P. Kimball, 91-124. New York: Academic Press. Hooper, Joan B., and Sandra A. Thompson (1973). On the Applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465-497.

References

307

Horn, George M. (1974). The Noun Phrase Constraint. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Horn, George M. (1975). On the Nonsentential Nature of the Poss-Ing Construction. Linguistic Analysis 1, 333-387. Hornstein, Norbert (1996). Movement and Control. Ms., University of Maryland. Hornstein, Norbert (1999). Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96. Horvath, Julia (1986). Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris. Huang, C.-T. James (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Hulk, A. and Ans van Kemenade (1993). Nominative Identification in Germanic and Romance Language. In Linguistics in Netherlands 1988, edited by Peter Coopmans and A. Hulk, 69-79. Dordrecht: Foris. latridou, Sabine (1990). About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21, 551-577. Ikawa, Hajime (1996). Overt Movement as a Reflex of Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Ikawa, Hajime, and Miyoko Yasui (1996). An Analysis of Overt Wh-Movement as Suffixation. TLF/TACL: Proceedings of TACL/TLF Summer Conference 9, 49-60. Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray (1977). X'-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jespersen, Otto (1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 7. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Johnson, Kyle (1991). Object Positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577-636. Kageyama, Taro (1993). Bunpou to Gokeisei [Grammar and Word Formation]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Karttunen, Lauri (1971). Definite Descriptions with Crosssing Coreference. Foundation of Language 7,157-182. Kayne, Richard (1976). French Relative Que. In Current Studies in Romance Linguistics, edited by M. Lujan, and F. Hensay, 255-299. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University School of Languages and Linguistics. Kayne, Richard (1981). ECP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93-133. Kayne, Richard (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard (1985). Principles of Particle Constructions. In Grammatical Representation, edited by Jacqueline Gueron, Hans-Georg Obnauer, and Jean-Yves Pollock, 101-140. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard (1989a). Facets of Past Participle Agreement in Romance. In Dialect Variation in the Theory of Grammar, edited by Paola Beninca, 85-104. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard (1989b). Notes on English Agreement. CIEFL Bulletin 1(2). Kayne, Richard (1993). Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection. Ms., CUNY. Kayne, Richard (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard (1998). Overt vs. Covert Movement. Ms., New York University. Keer, Edward, and Eric Bakovic (1997). Have Faith in Syntax. Ms., WCCFL/ROA. Kenesei, Istvan (1994). Subordinate Clauses. In Syntax and Semantics 27: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, edited by Ferenc Kiefer and Katalan E Kiss, 275-254. New York: Academic Press.

308

References

Kennedy, Christopher (1997). Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Syntax of Quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 662-688. Keyser, Samuel J., and Thomas Roeper (1984). On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381-416. Kikuchi, Akira (1994). Extraction from NP in Japanese. In Current Topics in English and Japanese, edited by Masaru Nakamura, 79-104. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky (1970). Fact. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, edited by Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakovits, 345-369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kishimoto, Hideki (1991). On the Nature of Quantificational Expressions. Ph.D. dissertation, Kobe University. Kishimoto, Hideki (1996). Preliminary Remarks on Japanese Predicate Restructuring. Ms., Shiga University. Kiss, Katalin E. (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kiss, Katalin E. (1996). Two Subject Positions in English. The Linguistic Review 13, 119-42. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Kitahara, Hisatugu (1994). Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Koizumi, Masatoshi (1993). Overt Object Shift and the Split VP Hypothesis. Ms., MIT. Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995). Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Koizumi, Masatoshi (1996). The Ups and Ups of Hebrew Verb Movement. Paper read at the 68th General Meeting of the English Literary Society of Japan, held at Rissyo University, Tokyo. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche (1991). The Position of Subjects. Lingua 85, 211-258. Kosmeijer, W. (1986). The Status of the Finite Inflection in Icelandic and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 26, 1-41. Kratzer, Angelika (1989). Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. Ms., University of Massachusetts. Kratzer, Angelika (1993). The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms., University of Massachusetts. Kratzer, Angelika (1996). Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. In The Generic Book, edited by Gregory Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125-175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor (1997). Verb Movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect Variation and Language Contact. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, edited by Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent, 297-325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuno, Susumu (1973) Constrains on Internal Clauses and Sentential Subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 363-385. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1983). What Can Japanese Say about Government and Binding. In Kuroda (1992). Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988). Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992). Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992). Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

References

309

Laka, Itziar (1990). Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lakoff, George (1986). Frame Semantic Control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. CLS 22,152-167. Lamontagne, Greg, and Lisa Travis (1987). The Syntax of Adjacency. WCCFL 6,173-186. Larson, Richard (1988). On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335391. Larson, Richard (1990). Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589-632. Lasnik, Howard (1988). Subjects and 9 -Criterion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 1-17. Lasnik, Howard (1992). Case and Expletives: Notes toward a Parametric Account. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 381-405. Lasnik, Howard (1994). Verbal Morphology: Syntactic Structures Meets the Minimalist Program. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Lasnik, Howard (1999). Verbal Morphology: Syntactic Structures Meets the Minimalist Program. The fifth Chapter of Minimalist Analysis. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Law, Paul (1991). Effects of Head-Movement on Theories of Subjacency and Proper Government. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lebeaux, David (1986). The Interpretation of Derived Nominals. CLS 22, 231 -247. Lebeaux, David (1991). Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation. Syntax and Semantics 25, 209-229. Lees, Robert B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalization. The Hague: Mouton. Lema, Jose, and Marfa-Luisa Rivero (1990). Long Head Movement: ECP vs. HMC. NELS 20, 333-347. Li, Yafei (1990). X°-Binding and Verb Incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 399-426. Lieber, Rochelle (1992). Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightfoot, David (1991). How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lobeck, Anne (1991). Phrase Structure of Ellipsis in English. In Syntax and Semantics 25 (Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing), edited by Susan D. Rothstein, 81-103. New York: Academic Press. Lobeck, Anne (1995). Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. New York: Oxford University Press. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1994). References and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609-665. Mahajan, Anoop (1990). The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Maling, Joan M. (1976). Notes on Quantifier Postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 708-718. Maling, Joan M., and Annie Zaenen (1978). The Nonuniversality of a Surface Filter. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 475-497. Martin, Roger (1992). On the Distribution and Case Feature of PRO. Ms., University of Connecticut. Martin, Roger (1997). Uninterpretable Features. In Report (1). Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language: Explanation of the Human Faculty for

310

References

Constructing and Computing Sentences on the Basis of Lexical Conceptual Features (Grant-in-Aid forCOE Research 08CE1001), Graduate School of Language Science, Kanda University of International Studies. Matsumoto, Masumi, and Koji Fujita (1995). The English Middle as an Individual-Level Predicate. Studies in English Literature 72-1, 95-111. May, Robert (1985). Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McCloskey, James (1979). Transformational Grammar and Model Theoretic Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. McCloskey, James (1990). Resumptive Pronouns, A'-binding, and Levels of Representation in Irish. In Syntax and Semantics 23 (The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages), edited by Randall Hendrick, 199-248. New York: Academic Press. McCloskey, James (1992). On the Scope of Verb Movement in Modern Irish. Technical Report LRC-92-10, Linguistic Research Center, Cowell College, University of California at Santa Cruz. McCloskey, James, and Kenneth Hale (1984). On the Syntax of Person-Number Inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 487-534. Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English Syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Miura, Yasuhiko (1998). Heavy NP Shift-no Sahou Idou Bunseki [A Leftward Movement Analysis of Heavy NP Shift]. Ms., Tohoku University. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989). Syntax and Semantics 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1996). Word Order Restrictions and Nonconfigurationality. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29 (Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2), 117-141. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1997). Against Optional Scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 1-25. Mohammad, M. A. (1989). Nominative Case, I-Subjects, and Subject-verb Agreement. CLS 24, 223-235. Miiller, Gereon (1996). A Constraint on Remnant Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 355-407. Miiller, Gereon (1997). Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Munn, Alan (1997). The Possessor That Stayed Close to Home. To appear in the Proceedings of the 15th WECOL. Murasugi, Keiko (1991). Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Murasugi, Keiko (1996). Some Notes on Argument Structure in Noun Phrases. Ms., Kinjo Gakuin University. Myers, Scott (1984). Zero-derivation and Inflection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 53-69. Nakajima, Heizo (1996). Complementizer Selection. The Linguistic Review 13, 143-164. Nakamura, Masaru (1995). X' Imiron [X'-semantics]. Report based on the Financial Aid from the Ministry of Education. Nash, L6a and Alain Rouveret (1997). Proxy Categories in Phrase Structure Theory. NELS 27, 287-304. Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1990). Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nishiyama, Kunio (1998). The Morphosyntax and Morphophonology of Japanese Predicates. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

References

311

Oehrle, Richard Thomas (1976). The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Ogawa, Yoshiki (1996a). Domain Minimality. JELS 13: Papers from the Thirteenth National Conference of the English Linguistic Society, 91-100. Ogawa, Yoshiki (1996b). Word Order, Object Shift and Multiple Specifiers. English Linguistics 13, 63-92. Ogawa, Yoshiki (1996c). The Definiteness of Tense and Spec-Head Agreement in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29 (Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2), 173-192. Ogawa, Yoshiki (1997). A Unified Syntax of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Ph.D. dissertation, Tohoku University. Ogawa, Yoshiki (1998a). Scrambling in Japanese as D-feature-Checking in Spec-AgrP. Proceedings of the 22th Conference of the Kansai Linguistic Society, 122-132. Ogawa, Yoshiki (1998b). Dative Shift in Japanese. Explorations in English Linguistics 13, 159-196. Ormazabal, Javier (1994). PRO, Null Case and the Interpretation of Complements. NELS 24,475-489. Ormazabal, Javier (1995). The Syntax of Complementation: On the Connection between Syntactic Structure and Selection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Otani, Kazuyo, and John Whitman (1991). V-Raising and VP-Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345-358. Ouhalla, Jamal (1991). Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge. Pesetsky, David (1982). Complementizer-Trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition. The Linguistic Review 1, 297-343. Pesetsky, David (1989). Language-particular Processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms., MIT. Pesetsky, David (1991). Zero Syntax II: An Essay on Infinitives. Ms., MIT. Pesetsky, David (1992). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Ms., MIT. Pesetsky, David (1995). Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David (1998). Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Pronounciation. In Is the Best Good Enough?: Optimality and Competition in Syntax, edited by Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 337-383. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene (1987). The Theory of Empty Categories and the Pro-Drop Parameter in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 23, 289-218. Pintzuk, Susan (1991). Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Plann, Susan (1982). Indirect Questions in Spanish. Linguistics Inquiry 13, 297-312. Plann, Susan (1986). On Case-marking Clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the Case Resistance Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 336-345. Platzack, Christer (1986). COMP, INFL, and Germanic Word Order. Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, edited by Lars Hellan and Kirsti Koch Christensen, 185-234. Dordrecht: Reidel. Platzack, Christer (1987). The Scandinavian Languages and the Null Subject Parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 377-401. Poletto, C. (1995). Complementizer Deletion and Verb Movement in Italian. Working Papers in Linguistics University of Venice.

312

References

Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424. Pollock, Jean-Yves (1997). Notes on Clause Structure. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Grammar, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 237-279. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pope, Emily Norwood (1972). Questions and Answers in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club (1975). Postal, Paul M. (1969). On So-called 'Pronouns' in English. In Modern Studies in English, edited by David Reidel and Sanford Schane, 201-224. Englewood, Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Postal, Paul M. (1974). On Raising: One Rule of Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Postma, Gertjan, and Johan Rooryck (1996). Modality and Possession in NPs. NELS 26, 273-287. Progovac, Ljijana (1988). A Binding Approach to Polarity Sensitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Pustejovsky, James (1991). The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition 41, 47-81. Ramchand, Gillian Catriona (1993). Aspect Phrase in Modern Scottish Gaelic. NELS 23, 415-429. Rapoport, Tova R. (1991). Adjunct-Predicate Licensing and D-structure. In Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, edited by Susan D. Rothstein, 159-187. New York: Academic Press. Raposo, Eduardo (1987). Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 85-109. Reinhart, Tanya (1992). Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program. Ms., Tel Aviv University. Reinholtz, Charlotte (1990). Verb Second in Mainland Scandinavian: A Reanalysis. WCCFL 9,459-475. Reinholtz, Charlotte (1993). Verb-Second, Negation and Minimality in Danish. WCCFL 11,405-420. Ritter, Elizabeth (1991). Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, edited by Susan D. Rothstein, 37-62. New York: Academic Press. Rivero, Maria-Luisa (1978). Topicalization and Wh-Movement in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 513-517. Rivero, Marfa-Luisa (1980). On Left-Dislocation and Topicalization in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 11,363-393. Rivero, Marfa-Luisa (1988). Barriers and the Null Subject Parameter in Modern Greek. NELS18,412-425. Rivero, Maria-Luisa (1994). Clause Structure and V-Movement in the Languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, 63-120. Rizzi, Luigi (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1986). On Chain Formation. Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. New York: Academic Press. Rizzi, Luigi (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generativr Syntax, edited by Liliane Hageman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

References

313

Roberts, Ian (1985). Agreement Parameters and the Development of English Modal Auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 21-58. Roberts, Ian (1986). The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris. Roberts, Ian (1993). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Roberts, Ian (1997). Restructuring, Head Movement, and Locality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 423-460. Roberts, Ian (1998). Have/Be Raising, Move F, and Procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 113-125. Rochemont, Mitchael S. (1989). Topic Islands and the Subjacency Parameter. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34, 145-170. Roeper, Thomas (1993). Explicit Syntax in the Lexicon: The Representation of Nominalization. In Semantics and the Lexicon, edited by James Pustejovsky, 185-220. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang (1994). The Germanic Languages and the Full Paradigm: A Theory of V to I Raising. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ross, John Robert (1986). Infinite Syntax! Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Rothstein, Susan D. (1983). The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Rothstein, Susan D. (1995). Pleonastics and the Interpretation of Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 499-529. Rouveret, Alain (1996). Bod in the Present Tense and in Other Tenses. In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A. Comparative Perspective, edited by Robert D. Borsley, and Ian Roberts, 125-170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rozwadowska, Bozena (1988). Thematic Restrictions on Derived Nominals. In Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic Relations, edited, by Wendy Wilkins, 147-165. New York: Academic Press. Runner, Jeffrey T. (1993). Quantificational Objects and Agr-o. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20, 209-224. Sadakane, Kumi, and Masatoshi Koizumi (1995). On the Nature of 'Dative' Particle Ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33, 5-33. Safir, Ken (1987). The Syntactic Projection of Lexical Thematic Structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 561-601. Saito, Mamoru (1982). Case-Marking in Japanese: A Preliminary Study. Ms., MIT. Saito, Mamoru (1983). Case and Government in Japanese. WCCFL 2, 247-259. Saito, Mamoru (1985). Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Saito, Mamoru (1989). Scrambling as Scmantically Vacuous A'-Movement. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, edited by Mark R. Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch, 182-200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saito, Mamoru (1992). Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,69-118. Saito, Mamoru, and Keiko Murasugi (1993). Subject Predication within IP and DP. Ms., University of Connecticut and Kinjo Gakuin University. Shima, Etsuro (1998). Syntactic Operations in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation, Tohoku University. Shlonsky, Ur (1991). Quantifiers as Functional Heads: A Study of Quantifier Float in Hebrew. Lingua 84, 159-80.

314

References

Siloni, Tali (1991). Noun Raising and the Structure of Noun Phrases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 255-270. Sportiche, Dominique (1988). A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449. Sportiche, Dominique (1990). Movement, Agreement, and Case. Ms., UCLA. Stowell, Timothy (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Stroik, Thomas S. (1992). Middles and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 127-137. Stroik, Thomas S. (1995). On Middle Formation: A Reply to Zribi-Hertz. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 165-111. Svenonius, Peter (1993). Selection as Feature Checking. Paper presented at the 16th GLOW Colloquium, Lund University. Szabolcsi, Anna (1983). The Possessor That Ran Away from Home. The Linguistic Review 3, 89-102. Szabolcsi, Anna (1994). The Noun Phrase. In Syntax and Semantics 27 (The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian), edited by F. Kiefer and Katalan E Kiss, 178-274. New York: Academic Press. Takahashi, Daiko (1994). Minimality of Movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Takahashi, Daiko (1997). Move-F and Null Operator Movement. The Linguistic Review 14, 181-196. Takano, Yuji (1994). Unbounded Traces and Indeterminacy of Derivation. In Current Topics in English and Japanese, edited by Masaru Nakamura, 229-254. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Takano, Yuji (1996). Movement and Parametric Variation in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Taraldsen, Tarald Knut (1980). On the Nominative Island Condition, Vacuous Application and the Thai-Trace Filter. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club. Taraldsen, Tarald Knut (1985). On Verb Second and the Functional Content of Syntactic Categories. In Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, edited by Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn, 7-25. Dordrecht: Foris. Taraldsen, Tarald Knut (1990). D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian. In Grammar in Progress: Glow Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, edited by Joan Mascaro and Maria Nespor, 419-431. Dordrecht: Foris. Tenny, Carol (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Terzi, Arhonto (1991). PRO and Obviation in Modern Greek Subjunctives. WCCFL 10, 471-482. Terzi, Arhonto (1992). PRO in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, New York. Terzi, Arhonto (1997). PRO and Null Case in Finite Clauses. The Linguistic Review 14, 335-360. Thrainsson, Hoskurdur (1979 [1946]). On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland publishing. Thrainsson, Hoskurdur (1984). Different Types of Infinitival Complements in Icelandic. In Sentential Complementation, edited by W. de Geest and Y. Putseys, 247-255. Dordrecht: Foris. Tomaselli, Allesandra (1990). Comp° as a Licensing Head: An Argument Based on Cliticization. In Grammar in Progress: Glow Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, edited by Joan Mascaro and Maria Nespor, 433-445. Dordrecht: Foris.

References

315

Tomisawa, Naoto (1994). Successive-Cyclic Movement and Feature-Checking in Japanese. In Current Topics in English and Japanese, edited by Masaru Nakamura, 285312. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1972). A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Travis, Lisa (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Travis, Lisa (1988). The Syntax of Adverbs. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issues on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Tsai, Wei-Tien (1994). On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Tsoulas, Georges (1995). Indefinite Clauses: Some Notes on the Syntax and Semantics of Subjunctives and Infinitives. WCCFL 13, 515-530. Underbill, Robert (1972). Turkish Particles. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 87-99. Ura, Hiroyuki (1993). On Feature-Checking for Wh-Traces. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 243-280. Ura, Hiroyuki (1995). (In)alienable Possessive Construction and Possessor-Raising. Ms., MIT. Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam (1994). Licensing Conditions on Negative Polarity Items. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Vainikka, Anne M. (1989). Deriving Syntactic Representation in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Valois, Daniel (1991). The Internal Syntax of DP. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, van Kemenade, Ans (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphiological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris. van Kemenade, Ans (1997). V2 and Embedded Topicalization in Old and Middle English. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, edited by Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent, 326-352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, van Riemsdijk, Henk (1998). Head Movement and Adjacency. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 633-678. Vendler, Zeno (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vergnaud, Jean Roger (1974). French Relative Clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Vergnaud, Jean Roger (1977). Quelques elements pour une theorie formelle des Cas. Ms., MIT. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (1992). The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 595-652. Vikner, Sten (1990). Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP-positions in the Germanic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Universite de Geneve. Vikner, Sten (1991). Relative der and Other C° Elements in Danish. Lingua 84,109-136. Vikner, Sten (1995). Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Vikner, Sten (1997). V°-to-Io Movement and Inflection for Person and All Tenses. In The New Comparative Syntax, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 189-213. London: Longman. Visser, F. (1963-73). A Historical Syntax of the English Language, 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Watanabe, Akira (1992). Subjacency and S-structure Movement of Wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 255-291.

316

References

Watanabe, Akira (1993). Agr-based Case Theory and Its Interaction with the A-bar System. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Watanabe, Akira (1996). Case Absorption and WH-Agreement. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Webelhuth, Gert (1989). Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Webelhuth, Gert (1992). Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation, New York: Oxford University Press. Weerman, Fred (1989). The V2 Conspiracy : A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in the Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Williams, Edwin (1985). PRO and Subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 297-315. Windfuhr, Gernot (1979). Persian Grammar: History and State of Its Study. The Hague: Mouton. Zagona, Karen (1988). Verb Phrase Syntax: A Parametric Study of English and Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zucchi, Alessandro (1989). The Syntactic and Semantic Status of the By-Phrase and the 0/-Phrase. NELS 19,467-484. Zwarts, Joost (1990). Some Parallels between DP and IP. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1, edited by Reineke Bok-Bennema and Peter Coopmans, 155-164. Dordrecht: Foris. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter (1994). Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Index

A-movement, 9, 91, 170, 171, 221, 222, 279, 280, 285, 290 Abney, Steven, 3, 177, 185, 187, 201, 202, 217,218,230,231,294 across-the-board, 53, 135, 257 adjacency between C and pronoun 125n affixation under, 122n anti-adjacency, 256 Adjunct Condition, 120, 132, 134, 148, 221 adjunction, 10,19, 66,150, 175, 184, 222, 250, 258-261, 263, 264, 267, 270, 272, 273, 280, 281, 287-290, 292, 293, 297 affix derivational, 22 inflectional, 15,16, 22-27, 30, 32, 70,174 nominalizing, 21, 23, 189 null affix amalgamation, 27,41,42 overt affixal C, 24-25 Agent-oriented modifiers, 190,191, 193, 196, 218 Agr(P), 4, 5, 24, 39,137,164, 259, 261-265, 267, 270-272, 294 AgrO(P), 163, 259-263 AgrS(P), 54, 58, 61, 115, 196, 259-262 Antecedent Contained Deletion (ACD), 282 317

Arabic, 62, 69, 231, 241, 245-248, 255, 288 argument structure, 4, 165,187,189,190, 196,203,211,227 asymmetry between Agentive and other subjects 163 between English and French 25-26, 119,122 between finite and nonfinite verbs, 94 between pronominals and nonpronominals, 231,237, 241,247 between verbs ands nouns 20, 21, 94, 146, 204 root/non-root, 83-84, 127, 159 subject/object, 62, 85, 231, 243-245 Attract-F, 11,12, 100, 121,152, 159, 246 Aux-to-Comp 30, 31,45, 56,72, 84, 104, 125, 134 Avoid Preposition Principle, 174 Avoid Pronoun Principle, 159, 174 A'-movement, 222, 231, 255, 279, 280, 285, 288, 290 Balkan languages, 63, 64, 102, 103,134 Ban on Superfluous Steps, 86, 87 Belletti, Adriana, 29 Binding Condition (A), 163

318

Binding Condition (C), 150,211, 212 Binding: backward, 161-163, 166 Boskovic, Zeljko, 86-88,91, 93, 101,106, 110,129,130,161,301 Canonical Structural Realization (CSR), 74,118,128,129 Case adjacency, 4, 5, 16,135, 221, 231, 257, 255-289, 296, 301 assignment, 107,156,159, 206, 223, 255, 296 Filter, 107,140, 158, 255, 256 marker drop, 276, 277 particles, 109, 231, 238, 248-255, 275, 276, 288, 289, 295, 301 Resistance Principle, 222 Theory, 14, 17, 103, 107, 163, 296 Accusative, 66, 108, 152, 158, 162-164, 168, 194, 201, 220, 223, 257, 260, 276, 282, 296 Agr-based Case Theory, 14, 163, 259261 Dative, 171,224, 232 dummy Case marker, 27, 203 follow-up Case checking, 115-117 generalized Case marking, 223n Genitive, 17, 89, 90, 138,146, 150, 153, 157-162, 183, 202, 207, 209, 213-215, 220, 223, 226, 229, 235 inherent, 15, 28,139, 157-161, 191, 226, 235, 296 Nominative, 17,48, 53, 54, 115, 134, 160, 162, 232, 242, 259, 261, 296, 298 Null, 91, 103, 129 Oblique, 296 particle system of, 16, 52, 231, 275 structural, 4, 15, 138, 139, 157-162, 172, 220, 226, 259, 296 category-neutral, 107, 148, 299, 300 category-selection, 17, 109, 113-115, 130, 135, 165 category-specific, 21, 107, 142, 147, 153, 256

Index Chain Condition, 179, 224 Cheng, Lisa, 21, 28, 81, 82, 88, 127, 135, 300 Chinese, 28, 67, 69, 81, 83, 127, 203, 223, 276 Chomsky, Noam, 3-11,13,14,18-20, 25, 36, 61, 73, 76-78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 89, 91-93, 95, 121,128-129, 137-140, 146,147, 153, 157-160,162,164,173, 177,185,188, 190, 198, 210, 225, 227, 229, 235, 237, 240, 245, 246, 250, 255, 256, 259, 261, 263, 265-272, 278, 281, 282, 286, 288, 294, 297, 300, 301 Cinque, Guglielmo, 78, 124, 129, 131, 230, 233, 234, 256, 272, 292, 293 Clause Typing, 81, 135 clitic, 31,32,145, 146, 242,295 closeness, 76, 264, 265, 267 Collins, Chris, 8, 79 Comp Comp-trace effect, 24, 50, 51, 60, 87, 88, 128, 130 Doubly Filled, 24 complementizer nominal, 139, 207-209, 213-215, 229 verbal, 207,208, 213, 228,229 complex event nominals (CENs), 138,139, 187-192, 196, 208-212, 215, 216, 218, 221,227-229,292 Complex NP, 43,149,151,182 Condition on Extraction Domain (CED), 153,221,261,262 control, 41, 42,45, 51, 73-75, 77, 91-93, 102-105,118,128,129,192,193, 195-197,218,221,301 Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), 109, 110, 134, 135 coordination, 53, 56, 82, 109, 135, 138, 257 copula, 110, 155, 156, 161, 175, 177, 178, 200, 201, 212, 213, 225, 237, 238 CP-Hypothesis, 106-111,117 CP-recursion, 112-115, 135 Danish, 32, 38-40,46,48, 50-52, 203 dative alternation, 166, 167, 173, 174 argument, 61, 169

Index impersonal construction, 48 object, 53 Dative Shift, 170-172 subject, 52 den Dikken, Marcel, 90,134,171,173, 174, 222-225, 279 Diesing, Molly, 8,13, 37,44, 45, 57, 6063,126,133,153,195,282 Doetjes, Jenny, 237, 262, 283 double object construction 27,28,122, 161,166-188,170,172,173,176,223, 224 DP Hypothesis, 185, 222,230, 231 Dutch, 32-35, 37,40,45-48, 50, 69,125, 126,173-175,224,225 Early Modern English (ENE), 47-49, 51, 69 ECM, 21,73-75,77-79, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93,107,118,129,130,132,140,158, 160 economy, 9,10,12,14, 81, 83,105,106, 154, 210, 246, 276 ECP, 5, 20-21, 87, 94,139-142,144,147, 149,157, 300 Edo, 67-69 Enlightened Self Interest, 32 epistemic modal, 72,104 epistemic verbs, 56, 72 EPP, 91,130, 159, 278, 280, 283, 284 equidistance, 11 event, 74,118,128,155,165, 227, 263, 269, 290 event-denoting nominals, 228 argument, 188,197 control, 192,196 nominal, 15,16, 144,168,176,187,189, 190,215,218,226,230,292 place, 226 structure, 4 excorporation, 125,133 existential closure 60-63 expletive determiner 108, 109, 236, 238, 272-274, 288-290, 294, 301 expletive pronoun 9,11,18, 19, 27,48, 49, 86, 120, 158-159, 204-206 Extension Condition, 83-84, 100 extraposition 123, 222, 259, 268 factive, 15, 21, 29, 30, 32, 44, 46, 57, 71,

319

fative (continued) 97-101,106,112,118, 122,125,130,132,141,152, 205 feature movement, 10-14,76, 79,152,245, 246 Finno-Ugric languages, 64 focus, 64, 67,101,102, 242,245, 254,268, 291 French, 20, 21, 24-26, 28-30,42, 45,46, 50,51, 58, 59,78, 79, 83, 84, 87-90, 92-97,118,119,121,122,129,130, 141-143,146,147,166,167,172-176, 184, 218, 224, 225, 231, 233, 236, 241-245,248, 256,261,266,267,272, 273, 285, 288,293-296 Frisian, 32-34, 36, 37,40,42,45,52, 56, 69, 294 Fujita, Koji, 137, 138, 162, 163, 166, 172, 173, 195, 296 Fukui, Naoki, 6, 8,18, 57,168,169, 237, 296 gender feature, 231, 240-248,255,285, 288, 294, 295 German, 32-36,40-42,45-48, 50, 55, 58, 61-62, 69,73,75, 83,102,126,134, 141, 144-146,207, 220,223,224, 233, 248, 273, 274 Germanic languages, 32-52, 61, 67,125, 134,172 gerunds 177, 187, 188, 201, 202, 216-219, 225, 229, 273, 298 government, 20, 21,73, 75,78, 87,142, 149,153, 255 Grimshaw, Jane, 16,17,74,118,120,138, 144, 156,187,188,191-193, 200-204, 206, 210, 212, 215-217, 220, 227-229 Head Movement Constraint, 42, 85,184 Heavy NP Shift, 227, 291 Hebrew, 88, 231, 238, 248, 294-296 Hindi, 81,130, 275 Hungarian, 64-70,124, 289 Icelandic, 32, 38,43-46,52, 69,113,125, 159, 224 immobility of traces, 36 inalienable possession, 160,189, 226, 235, 236 interrogative, 14, 25, 64, 76, 79-83, 87, 88,

320

interrogative (continued), 114, 124, 125, 135,241,279,286 IP-Hypothesis, 106-111,117 Irish, 24, 58, 59, 61, 62, 69, 88, 223 Italian, 29-31, 34, 45, 50, 56, 69, 78, 84-86, 108, 129, 134, 145, 232-236, 238, 239, 255, 256, 261, 272-274, 288, 293 Jackendoff, Ray, 64, 131 Japanese, 16, 24, 52-54, 56-58, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 80-82, 88, 104, 108, 127, 134, 139,159, 168, 169 Johnson, Kyle, 223, 256, 258-260, 262, 270,271,288,296 Kayne, Richard, 5, 7,14-16, 20, 21, 23, 31, 50, 59, 73, 77, 78, 85, 93, 106,129, 130, 137, 139, 140-144, 147, 151, 152, 157, 167, 174, 220, 222, 225, 257, 268, 276, 285, 293, 294, 296, 300 Kennedy, Christopher, 13, 282 Kishimoto, Hideki, 72, 127, 129, 224, 228, 294 Kiss, Katalan, 61,64, 65, 128 Koizumi, Masatoshi, 5, 8, 10, 14, 16, 70, 53, 54, 82, 94, 96, 99, 112, 138,162, 170-172, 259, 263, 265, 269-271, 284, 286-288, 296, 301 Komplementizer, 16, 143, 230-255 Koopman, Hilda, 8, 57, 58, 70 KP Hypothesis, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 241, 258-240, 255, 288, 291, 297 Kuno, Susumu, 262 language-particular, 245, 256 Larson, Richard, 26,123,199, 227, 247, 257, 264, 274 Lasnik, Howard, 78, 91,103,121,128, 192, 196 Last Resort, 31, 32, 43, 77, 78, 91-92, 130, 154, 159, 210, 280, 284-286 Law, Paul, 33-34, 50, 59, 88, 106 Lebeaux, David, 150, 210, 228 LF movement, 10-13,72, 76, 96-100,105, 110, 118,129, 133, 150-157,160-164, 164, 175, 210, 216, 219-222, 246, 282 light verb construction, 138, 140, 143, 153, 154, 176, 179, 184 Lightfoot, David, 47, 48, 126

Index Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), 14, 15, 19,130,222,257,276,293 Longobardi, Giuseppe, 108, 232, 236, 239, 272-274, 293, 294 lowering, 23, 55, 76, 121, 132, 278, 279 Mainland Scandinavian languages (MSLs), 38, 40-42, 45, 46, 70 May, Robert, 13, 282 McCloskey, James, 24, 58-60, 70, 245 Middle English (ME), 47-49, 51, 69, 126, 127 Minimal Link Condition (MLC), 9, 11, 133, 159, 209, 212, 214-216, 219, 222, 238, 246, 264-267, 270, 288, 300 minimalist, 5, 9, 10,12, 19, 21, 55, 78, 80, 81,84,87,88,91,99, 105, 112, 129, 135, 142, 149, 159, 162, 199, 263, 280, 281,284 Miyagawa, Shigeru, 168, 169, 171 modal construction, 5, 16, 140, 150, 153, 154, 176, 182-184,204,226 Modern Greek, 63, 64, 69, 88,103,134, 248 Mohawk, 280 Mood, 101, 103, 108, 134, 159 Morphology, 6, 22, 23, 96, 101, 277 Move-F, 10, 11, 13, 14, 110, 152, 164, 246, 247 multiple Specs, 12, 18, 131 Murasugi, Keiko, 86, 160, 207, 252 Myers, Scott, 4, 15, 21-23, 71, 119, 120, 272 Negative Polarity Item (NPI), 89,90, 98 nominalizer, 4,120,180, 220, 223, 289 nonvolitional Causer, 161, 163, 165, 166, 172, 176, 191 Norwegian, 32, 38-40, 46, 50, 51, 69, 87, 88,111,130,234,235,255 notional subject, 262, 282-285, 297 null hypothesis, 150,271 null subjects, 48, 49, 70, 86 Number (Phrase), 230, 293 numeration, 6, 7, 9, 11, 80, 105, 106 object agreement, 231, 241-245, 266, 285, 286 object shift, 5,15, 16,163,171, 259, 262,

Index object shift (continued), 263, 265, 271, 276, 296 of-insertion, 156, 203, 204, 206, 208, 252, 273, 291 Ogawa, Yoshiki, 9,15,18, 24, 50,54, 60, 88,95,109,123,128,169-171,199, 222, 226, 227, 230, 237, 276, 292, 296 Old English (OE), 47-51, 69,70,102, 126, 127 operator, 42,48, 59, 85, 86,102, 111, 130,134, 222, 279, 280 generic, 196, 222, 227 null, 13,76, 84,90,140, 222 Optimality Theory, 119 optionality, 55, 84, 85, 101, 114, 116, 121,124,134,174,189, 265, 269 Ormazabal, Javier, 73, 74, 88, 97-100,118, 128,130-132,152,158 perfect chain, 79 person feature, 231, 232, 240, 241-248, 288, 294, 295 Pesetsky, David, 4, 17, 21-24, 27, 86, 92, 93,106,109, 111, 119,120,130,142, 163, 164, 166-168, 172-174, 222-224, 257, 291 phi-features, 4,16, 19,52,110, 231, 240, 241, 243, 244, 247, 248, 255, 288, 294 phonological merger, 59,121,134, 277 pied-piping, 13,14, 76,152 Platzack, Christer, 50,125,134 Polarity(P), 89, 98, 256, 268,269, 279-281, 285-287, 289-291, 297, 298 Pollock, Jean-Jves, 25,42,70, 94, 95,108, 121, 123, 137, 256, 268, 269, 272 Portuguese, 29-31, 34,56, 69,72, 75, 88 possessor, 153,160,183, 232, 234-236, 248-252, 255, 293, 294 predicate-internal subject, 8,9, 30, 171, 176,195, 222, 237, 245 presuppositional, 13, 97, 99, 100, 133, 153, 261, 282 PRO, 41, 72, 74, 75,77, 91, 93,102-104, 128,140,192-196, 223, 287 PRO Gate 133 proclitic, 239, 240, 250, 295 Procrastinate, 9, 10, 12, 83, 261

321

prohibition against attracting traces, 76, 97, 121,168,279,281 Proper Binding Condition (PBC), 99,100, 133 proposition, 20,74, 79, 97, 98,109,113, 118,122,151-155,186,274 Q-particle, 81,82, 89 quantificational, 62, 82, 282 adjective, 251 determiner, 251 quantifier floating, (FQ), 171, 237, 238, 262, 263, 271,283,284,295 universal, 13, 236-238, 251-254, 290 raising (complement/predicate), 22, 58, 89-92,100,118,130,146,158,222, 260, 267 rationale clause, 192,193,196,197, 201, 218 reanalysis, 41, 51,116,122,129,184, 189,197,199,200,221,227 relative clause, 4,16, 59, 84-87, 89,111, 112,150-152,219,222,300 relativization, 129, 130 Relativized Minimality, 293 restructuring, 72 result nominal (RN), 138,144,155,156, 176,187-190,192,197,201-202, 219-221,206,208-216,227 resumptive pronoun, 43, 59 rightward movement, 227, 256, 268-270 Rizzi, Luigi, 23, 24,31, 42,57, 59, 84, 8689,104,170, 256, 298 Roberts, Ian, 12, 29, 37, 39,47,48, 70, 125, 191, 194,195 Romance languages, 16, 21, 29-31, 35,42, 52,75,77,78, 88, 93,103, 104,109, 118,129,145,231,233,236,255, 261, 273, 286, 290 Romanian, 29, 30, 69, 101, 102, 133, 134, 233-235, 255, 293 Rothstein, Susan, 179,205, 262,283 Saito, Mamoru, 54, 86,108,133,168, 169, 277 Sanuma, 223 scope, 5, 13, 14, 62, 63, 82, 89, 98, 151, 152, 196, 208, 210, 236-238, 264, 269

322

scrambling, 52, 62,133,168,169,171, 252, 253, 275, 296n selection, 17,43, 83,106,109,113-115, 130, 135, 165, 179, 220, 229, 287, 289 Shlonsky, Ur, 238, 296 Siloni, Tali, 294, 295n simple event nominals (SENs), 138, 187203, 206, 209-216, 218-221, 227-229 small clause, 4, 79,140, 168,173-175, 274, 280, 282-285 SOV 14, 15, 32, 34, 36-39,43,45,48, 52, 61, 64, 79,125, 126,273, 275, 276, 296 Spanish, 29, 30, 69,103, 114, 115,123, 124, 203, 223, 289, 294 Specificity Condition, 227 Split VP (Hypothesis), 95, 260 Sportiche, Dominique, 8, 57, 58,70, 223, 262 Stowell, Tim, 5,15, 16, 20, 23, 26, 73, 106, 132, 138,148,149,154-156, 200, 203, 204, 206, 210, 212, 216, 221-223, 229, 229, 252, 255, 256, 273, 277, 291 strict cyclic condition, 41, 71 subcategorization, 17,105, 106, 113, 117, 176, 217, 221 Subject-Aux Inversion, 281 subject-oriented, 124,131, 171, 237, 262, 293 Subject Condition, 134, 222, 261, 262, 279, 280, 283, 285 subjunctive clause, 101-106,118, 134,144, 301 particle, 101-104,133, 134 subordinator, 274 successive cyclic, 41,43,77, 78, 92, 118, 146,168, 237, 239, 240, 297 SVO, 15, 38,42-44, 62-64, 125, 126, 223, 241, 245, 276, 294-296 Swedish, 32, 38-40, 50, 52, 69, 111, 113, 125, 223 Szabolcsi, Anna, 230-232, 274 Takano, Yuji, 99,129,276,296 Taraldsen, Tarald, 40, 51, 87 Terzi, Arhonto, 63, 64, 101-105, 133, 134 thematic adjectives, 293 thematic hierarchy, 169, 170 -theory, 8, 9

Index topicalization, 35, 38-40, 45, 48, 54, 55, 57, 99, 110-115, 117,118, 120, 125,126, 132,133, 135, 152 tough (adjectives/construction), 76-78, 140, 147 Turkish, 81,224 Uniformity Condition, 157,158 Uniformity Condition on Chain, 36, 55 Uniformity Condition on Movement (UCM), 91 unselective binding, 82, 129 V-to-C, 33, 34, 36-39,45-49, 51, 56, 59, 62, 66, 68, 69, 82,83, 102, 104,118, 126, 128, 134, 207, 273, 301 V-to-I, 37, 38, 45, 46,48, 49, 51, 57, 59, 61,68,70,83,126,223,294 V2 (verb second), 70, 75, 83, 125, 126, 128, 141, 146, 159,206 Valois, Daniel, 71,97,131, 178,191,200, 204-206, 212, 216, 220, 223, 226, 227, 230, 236, 273, 292 van Kemenade, Ans, 33-35, 47-49, 102, 126,146 van Riemsdijk, Henk, 134, 280 variable, 13, 62, 82,137 verbal noun (VN), 61,173,180, 183, 184, 211,214,215,219,223,229 verbalizer, 4, 179, 181 verbs of saying, 56, 72, 228 accomplishment, 190, 225 allege-class, 92, 93 assertive, 113,122 bridge, 132, 134,149 causative, 15, 24,138-139,160-162, 166,171,173,175,176,224 ditransitive, 27, 28, 93, 122, 166-168, 172, 173, 176, 224, 225, 300 epistemic, 56, 72 inchoative, 24,166, 172,173, 175, 176, 223-225 manner-of-speaking, 132, 149, 154, 157,208,219,221,222 middle, 190-197, 218, 220, 227 pseudo-lexical, 177 semifactive, 112, 132, 156, 204, 211 speech act, 161, 173-176

323

Index unaccusative, 35,120,180,181, 225, 243, 278 Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, 84,129, 235, 236, 255 Vikner, Sten, 39,40,43-45, 50,113,125, 134, 294, 295 Visibility Conditio, 91,156,203, 204, 206,

Watanabe (continued), 282,288,296 Webelhuth, Gert, 29, 32, 35,44,106, 146, 204, 206, 278, 280 West Flemish, 32, 33,45,52, 69, 88 wh-in-situ, 81, 82, 88,129,130, 300 wh-movement, 15, 21, 24, 25, 59, 75-77, 79, 81, 84, 88, 89,93,118,129,150, 153, 222, 224, 232, 279, 281, 285, 286, 288, 301

210, 212, 216, 220, 222 Voice(P), 138,263 VOS, 24, 57, 64 X'-theory, 3,4, 6, 7,137,299 VP-shell, 26,93,126,274 VSO, 24, 57-59,62-64, 223, 241,242, 245, Yiddish, 32, 38,43-46, 52, 69,113,125, 247 126

Watanabe, Akira, 38-40, 58,60, 61,78, 88, 101, 103,112,115,124,125,129,132,

zero derivation, 22, 197 219

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax)

Concordância nominal e verbal sem segredo

A Unified Theory of a Law

Location Theory. A Unified Approach

Location Theory: A Unified Approach

Syntactic Theory: A Unified Approach

A New Unified Theory of Psychology

Location theory: a unified approach

Strength of materials: a unified theory

Strength of materials: a unified theory

Strength of Materials: A Unified Theory

Physics of a Flying Saucer: And a Unified Field Theory

Unified Theory of Concrete Structures

Unified Signal Theory

The Complexity of the Irregular Verbal and Nominal Forms & the Phonological Changes in Arabic

A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models

A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models

Unified Signal Theory

Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time

The Hybrid Grand Unified Theory

On Various Geometries Giving a Unified Electric and Gravitational Theory

Map Projections

Multidimensional Neural Networks Unified Theory

An essay toward a unified theory of special functions

The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography

Unified

Analysis of nominal data, Issue 7

A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors

Mathematical Statistics: A Unified Introduction

Algorithms Sequential and Parallel: A Unified Approach

A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections