SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS VOLUME 30
EDITORIAL BOARD
Series Editors BRIAN D. JOSEPH AND CARL POLLARD Department of Linguistics The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio
Editorial Advisory Board JUDITH AISSEN University of California, Santa Cruz
PAULINE JACOBSON Brown University
PETER CULICOVER The Ohio State University
MANFRED KRIFKA University of Texas
ELISABET ENGDAHL University of Gothenburg
WILLIAM A. LADUSAW University of California, Santa Cruz
JANET FODOR City University of New York
BARBARA H. PARTEE University of Massachusetts
ERHARD HINRICHS University of Tubingen
PAUL M. POSTAL Scarsdale, New York
A list of titles in this series appears at the end of this book.
SYNTAX and SEMANTICS VOLUME 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax
Edited by Erhard Hinrichs Seminar fur Sprachwissenschaft Universit'at Tubingen D-72074 Tubingen, Germany Andreas Kathol Department of Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California 94720 Tsuneko Nakazawa Language and Information Sciences University of Tokyo Tokyo 153, Japan
This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright © 1998 by ACADEMIC PRESS All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publisher. The appearance of the code at the bottom of the first page of a chapter in this book indicates the Publisher's consent that copies of the chapter may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay the stated per copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923), for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. Copy fees for pre-1998 chapters are as shown on the title pages. If no fee code appears on the title page, the copy fee is the same as for current chapters. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
Academic Press a division of Harcourt Brace & Company 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495, USA http://www.apnet.com Academic Press Limited 24-28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX, UK http://www.hbuk.co.uk/ap/ International Standard Book Number: 0-12-613530-4 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 98 99 00 01 02 03 QW 9 8 7 6
5
4
3 2 1
CONTENTS
Contributors Preface
ix xi
Two Kinds of Composition in French Complex Predicates
1
ANNE ABEILLE, DANIELE GODARD, AND IVAN A. SAG 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Introduction A Lexical Analysis of French Clitics Composition with Tense Auxiliaries Composition FAIRE Reflexive Verbs Conclusion References
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters in German and Dutch
1 5 14 17 23 33 39
43
GOSSE BOUMA AND GERTJAN VAN NOORD
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Introduction The Constituent Structure of German VPS Word Order within the German Verb Cluster Word Order in Dutch Verb Clusters Comparison and Conclusions References V
43 44 51 63 69 71
vi
Contents
Constraining Argument Merger through Aspect MIRIAM BUTT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Introduction Previous Approaches to Complex Predicates Complex Predicate Formation Urdu Causatives Formal Considerations Causatives, Aspect, and Affectedness An Alternative Analysis of Causatives Passives and Unspecified Objects Conclusion References
Third Construction and VP Extraposition in German: An HPSG Analysis ERHARD W. HINRICHS AND TSUNEKO NAKAZAWA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Introduction Incoherent Infinitive Constructions in German VP Extraposition Third Construction as a Special Case of VP Extraposition Dual Properties of Third Construction Triggering Verbs Argument Composition, ID Schemas, and Forcing Argument Raising in the Third Construction The Third Construction Lexical Rule LP Rules Long Passives A Comparison with Previous Analyses Open Problems Conclusion References
Argument Composition and Long-Distance Scrambling in Korean: An Extension of the Complex Predicate Analysis CHAN CHUNG 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Introduction Argument Composition and Auxiliary Verb Construction Long-Distance Scrambling and Argument Composition Theoretical Predictions Summary and Conclusions References
73 73 74 80 85 89 94 103 105 106 109
115 115 116 118 122 129 131 135 138 140 145 148 150 154
159 159 160 177 206 211 218
Contents
Constituency and Linearization of Verbal Complexes
vii
221
ANDREAS KATHOL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Introduction Argument Composition and Branching Structure Constituency Linearization A Radically Linearization-Based Theory? Concluding Remarks References
A Deductive Account of French Object Clitics
221 223 225 233 248 260 267 271
ESTHER KRAAK 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Introduction Categorial Logics Data Simple Clitic Constructions Clitic Order Clitics and Verbal Complexes Comparison with Other Analyses Conclusion Appendix: The Framework References
Italian Restricting Verbs: A Lexical Analysis
271 272 285 288 292 296 303 307 308 311 313
PAOLA MONACHESI 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Introduction Basic Facts The Syntactic Structure of Restructuring Verbs The Analysis An Alternative Analysis Restructuring Verbs in Salentino Conclusion References
Causatives and the Nature of Argument Structure
313 314 316 320 344 347 360 366 369
GERT WEBELHUTH 1. Introduction 2. The Data from Causatives
369 371
viii 3. Some Analytic Prerequisites 4. The Analysis of Causatives References Index
Contents
385 396 421 423
CONTRIBUTORS
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions begin.
Anne Abeille (1), TALANA, UFRL, Universite Paris 7, 75251 Paris cedex 05, France Gosse Bouma (43), Alfa-informatica & BCN, Groningen University, NL9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands Miriam Butt (73), Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universitat Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany Chan Chung (159), Department of English Language and Literature, Dongseo University, Churye-Dong, Sasang-ku, Pusan 617-716, Korea Daniele Godard (1), CNRS, Silex, Universite Lille 3, BP149, 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq, France Erhard W. Hinrichs (115), Seminar fur Sprachwissenschaft, EberhardKarls-Universitat Tubingen, D-72074 Tubingen, Germany Andreas Kathol (221), Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720 Esther Kraak (271), Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands Paola Monachesi (313), Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands Tsuneko Nakazawa (115), Language and Information Sciences, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan Ivan A. Sag (1), Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 Gertjan Van Noord (43), Vakgroep Alfa-informatica & BCN, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL-9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands Gert Webelhuth (369), Department of Linguistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599
ix
This page intentionally left blank
PREFACE
Early transformational syntax was to a large degree centered around the notion of kernel sentence, that is, of a syntactic representation that consists of a verb—possibly accompanied by some tense and modal elements—and all and only its arguments at some underlying level. To a great extent, such kernel sentences contained elements that also formed parts of semantic units with prepositional meaning. Phenomena which involve a grouping in the syntax that is incongruent with such semantic predicate-argument relations were explained in terms of transformations that altered the original groupings and rearranged the syntactic configurations at a later stage in the derivation. Even though the term kernel sentence is no longer used, much of the work in current descendants of transformational grammar still implicitly implements the same idea. For instance, the role of Verb Phrase (VP) in much of recent transformational literature has to a great extent been to represent core predicate-argument relations, which also include subjects, at least in some variants (Diesing, 1992). Such representations serve as bases for the assignment of phrasal material to higher phrase-structural positions, mostly to specifier positions of various kinds. Alternatively, heads may move out of their immediate clausal cores to group directly with other heads, either in incorporation structures or in similar amalgams of nonphrasal (X°-level) elements, which we will refer to here as head clusters. The idea of deriving syntactic complexity from alterations of relatively simple representations of core predicate relations is shared by other derivational frameworks such as (early) Relational Grammar. However, there has been mounting evidence that the derivational perspective is inadequate for the description of head cluster phenomena. Mechanisms developed for dislocation of phrasal constituents can often be shown to lack descriptive adequacy when applied to these other construction types. Moreover, monostratal theories do not even avail themselves of different levels of syntactic description and therefore cannot readily implement analyses based on core predicate-argument representations. This has led to xi
xii
Preface
a line of investigation, mostly in nonderivational frameworks (but cf. Haider, 1993, for similar ideas in a transformational theory), that completely eschews the idea of core sentences and builds amalgams of nonphrasal constituents directly in the syntax. In many respects the resulting structures (or subparts thereof) behave in ways similar to lexical predicates, especially with respect to valence properties. As a result, the term complex predicates has emerged as a way to classify this line of inquiry. In the theory of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard and Sag, 1994) argument composition has been employed as the central mechanism in the analysis of complex predicates. Argument composition refers to the merging of the valence list of a lexical verbal category with the valence list of its verbal complement. Such an account of complex predicates was first proposed in HPSG by Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989) (see also Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1994) to account for the topicalization of verbal constituents and for the Oberfeldumstellung (also known as "auxiliary flip") construction in German. Subsequently, argument composition has been adopted to account for a variety of syntactic constructions in different languages, including clitic climbing in Italian (Monachesi, 1993), syntactic properties of auxiliaries in French (Abeille and Godard, 1994), and cross-serial dependencies in Dutch (Rentier, 1994). Argument composition in HPSG can be regarded as a lexicalized variant of the operation of function composition familiar from Categorial Grammar (Lambek, 1958; Geach, 1972). For the treatment of complex predicates function composition has been proposed by, among others, Moortgat (1984) and Moortgat and Oehrle (1994) to account for verb raising in Dutch and synthetic compounding and by Johnson (1986) to account for verbal clusters in German. Unlike HPSG or Categorial Grammar, the analysis of complex predicates in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982) has focused on the level of functional structure (f-structure). Butt (1995) argues that cross-linguistically the phrase structure of a complex predicate can be either simple (i.e., monoclausal) or complex (i.e., biclausal), while at the level of f-structure complex predicates give rise to a single nuclear predicate (PRED). The present volume brings together recent research in the area of complex predicates in a variety of different languages (German, Dutch, Italian, French, Korean, and Urdu, among others) undertaken in a variety of nonderivational theories (HPSG, LFG, and Categorial Grammar). The contributions focus on diverse aspects of the syntax and semantics of complex predicate phenomena in these languages, including order variation, constituency relations, interactions with other construction types (cliticization, phrasal complementation), argument relations (causativization, passive), and the syntax-morphology interface, to name a few. Thus
Preface
xiii
this collection provides a representative sample of one of the most active research areas in nonderivational theories of grammar in recent years. The focus of the articles is decidedly on issues of linguistically adequate description; hence this volume should be of primary interest to linguists working on the phenomena mentioned, whether their focus is syntax, semantics, or morphology, regardless of theoretical orientation. But since the analyses are for the most part cast in highly formalized frameworks of grammatical descriptions, we believe that this collection should also be of considerable interest to researchers in neighboring fields such as computational linguistics and natural language processing. We now turn to a more detailed description of the individual contributions. Anne Abeille, Daniele Godard, and Ivan Sag investigate causative constructions in French involving FAIRE, with special attention to the behavior of pronominal clitics of various kinds. The distribution of such clitic elements presents crucial evidence that causative constructions have to be distinguished from other kinds of complex predicates, in particular those involving tense auxiliaries. While both construction types employ argument composition, they differ crucially with respect to whether it is the verbal argument's COMPS list or its ARG-ST list that contributes elements to the ARG-ST list of the complex predicate. The authors argue that causative FAIRE constructions belong to the first class and show how this assumption straightforwardly accounts for numerous differences in the climbing behavior of pronominal clitics. Aside from this novel analysis, which, among other things, is extended into a fine-grained account of subtle differences among French reflexive constructions, the authors also propose a number of innovations in the descriptive apparatus. Thus, while their analysis is crucially driven by distinctions made among different lexical variants of the verbs involved, the different lexical forms are not obtained by lexical rules, as has been the practice in much previous work. Instead, the entire system (apart from a derivational rule for medio-passive reflexives) functions in terms of constraints on lexical types. Gosse Bouma and Gertjan van Noord argue that the word order of German as well as Dutch verb clusters can be accounted for without attributing constituents status to them. Their analysis rests on the assumption that a single HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema exists and licenses phrases consisting of a lexical head and an arbitrary number of its complements. Word order is accounted for by means of linear precedence statements only. A set of such statements that accounts for the full range of ordering possibilities encountered in German and Dutch verb clusters is given. Furthermore, it is shown how the analysis leads to an improved account of partial VP fronting.
xiv
Preface
Miriam Butt provides an LFG analysis of the Urdu causative and permissive, which form a complex predicate in that a biclausal argument structure corresponds to a monoclausal syntactic structure. In addition to the f(unctional)-structure and c(onstituent)-structure, a(rgument)-structure is proposed as an independent level of representation relating grammatical functions to phrase structure representations of sentences. Arguments are "fused" in a-structure and in turn are linked to grammatical functions allowing for an analysis of complex predicates in which more than one argument corresponds to a single grammatical function. Unlike previous proposals, a-structure is viewed as a syntactic level of representation as it captures lexical properties of a predicate that help determine the syntactic realization of the predicate's arguments, i.e., their grammatical functions and case markings. The linking of thematic information to grammatical function is sensitive to aspectual information associated with each argument of a predicate in the a-structure. The alternation in the case marking of the causee, which is often attributed to the "affectedness" of the causee, is accounted for in terms of the aspectual relevance of arguments, thus avoiding the stipulation of semantic notions such as affectedness in the a-structure. Chan Chung's article investigates the syntactic properties of different kinds of finite and nonfinite complementation in Korean. After developing a version of Hinrichs and Nakazawa's argument composition approach for the analysis of Korean verbal complexes, Chung shows how this approach can be extended to longrdistance scrambling constructions. Such apparent displacements of arguments from VPS and finite clauses have traditionally been analyzed in terms of A'-movement (as in Government-BindingTheory (GB)) or as a result of SLASH passing (as in HPSG), but Chung argues that a superior analysis is obtained if instead the complex predicate approach is extended to these cases. Among the main evidence in favor of this proposal, Chung cites certain weak crossover effects and passivization constructions. Erhard Hinrichs and Tsuneko Nakazawa present an analysis of the so-called THIRD CONSTRUCTION in German. This construction type refers to a syntactic configuration in which a subject control verb such as versuchen ('try') splits its VP complement, e.g., das Auto zu reparieren, into discontinuous parts, as in daft Peter das Auto uersucht zu reparieren ('that Peter tries to repair the car'). What makes the THIRD CONSTRUCTION notoriously difficult to analyze is the fact that this construction does not fit neatly in the opposition between two types of infinitive constructions in German that, following Bech (1955), are commonly referred to as coherent and incoherent infinitive constructions. Rather, the THIRD CONSTRUCTION exhibits some of the properties of each of these two classes.
Preface
XV
Hinrichs and Nakazawa present an HPSG analysis of the THIRD CONSTRUCTION which makes use of argument composition, originally proposed for the treatment of German auxiliaries by the same authors (Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1989). Argument composition allows control verbs to form complex predicates with their governed zw-infinitives; its nominal complements are "raised" to the matrix level, giving rise to the discontinuous word order of the elements of the VP complement. A wide range of related properties of the THIRD CONSTRUCTION and of the coherent-incoherent infinitive constructions are treated by a single lexical rule which alters the subcategorization framework of control verbs. Andreas Kathol's contribution parallels that of Bouma and van Noord in many respects. Like the latter authors, Kathol is concerned with the parameters of order variation seen in the verb cluster of various German and Dutch dialects. And while he also adopts argument composition as the driving force in the construction of head clusters, his approach to discontinuity effects involves not a flattening of the phrase structure—as proposed by Bouma and van Noord—but instead relies on a loosening in the relationship between constituency and linear order. This allows him to retain common assumptions about the constituency relations and to treat the verb cluster as a syntactic constituent. Embedded in the linearizationbased approach of Kathol (1995), the analysis extends naturally to the clause-initial occurrences of finite verbs in root environments in a purely linearly based fashion. In the final section, Kathol compares his approach to that of Reape (1993), which is often considered to be a competitor of the argument composition analysis. A number of shortcomings of Reape's proposals are pointed out which argue that a complex predicate view of German verb clusters is to be preferred over a purely linearization-based analysis. Esther Kraak's article presents a novel account of the distribution and placement of French object clitics in the framework of multimodal categorial grammar logic (Moorgat, 1997). Multimodal categorial grammar combines insights from resource-conscious logics, in particular Linear Logic, whose proof systems require that each assumption can and must be used only once, with categorial grammars in the tradition of the Lambek calculus. The resource-conscious aspects of multimodal categorial grammars is introduced through a set of control operators which can license and constrain the applicability of structural operations. These control operators can be related to one another by a set of inclusion principles, which order the application of different resource management modes, and by interaction principles, which legislate how different modes of combination can be mixed. For the purposes of natural language analysis, the resulting system is flexible in that it makes available different modes of
xvi
Preface
assembling linguistic structure and at the same time provides mechanisms to restrict the interaction between the different structural modes. Kraak shows how such a multimodal setup can be fruitfully applied to the highly complex empirical domain of French object clitics, and she compares her proposal to alternative analyses in categorial grammar (e.g., Nashida 1991) and HPSG (Miller and Sag 1995). Paola Monachesi presents an analysis of restructuring verbs of Italian, a class of verbs which includes modal, aspectual, and motion verbs. Restructuring verbs exhibit uniform morphosyntactic properties with respect to clitic climbing, long NP movement, tough constructions, and auxiliary selection. In particular, clitic climbing has often been used as one of the more reliable diagnostics for complex predicate formation. In this construction, a clitic which originates as a dependent of a complement verb can climb and attach to a restructuring verb. Monachesi shows that the mechanism of argument composition allows a uniform account of the different properties exhibited by restructuring verbs, in particular of citic climbing, long NP movement, and the apparent parallelism between these two phenomena. Furthermore, an explanation is given for the fact that the Italian tough construction, which is strictly bounded, appears to be unbounded in the presence of restructuring verbs. The differences and similarities of monosyllabic clitics and of the clitic loro ('to them') with respect to climbing are derived by assuming that they have a different status. Monosyllabic clitics show affix-like behavior, while loro exhibits word-like behavior. Finally, Monachesi demonstrates that her treatment is flexible enough to deal with dialectal variation. Her analysis is extended to deal with restructuring verbs in Salentino. In this southern Italian dialect, in contrast to Standard Italian, it is possible to have clitic climbing out of a finite clause. Gert Webelhuth's article gives an overview of the types of causative constructions found in the world's languages and illustrates that grammatical theory has to account for at least three different kinds of causatives: (i) those which behave in all respects as if they form a single clause; (ii) those which systematically behave as if they project two clauses; and (iii) those which show mixed behavior of the two previous types. In addition, the paper shows that each of the three types of causatives can be expressed synthetically or analytically, i.e., as one single word or a collection of words. Webelhuth goes on to develop a theory of causatives as a special case of an inventory of universally available lexical predicate constructions. The analysis exploits the lexical type hierarchy to express generalizations across the different causatives and allows individual languages to posit causative predicate types whose morphophonological spell-outs are Ian-
Preface
xvii
guage-particular but whose functional-semantic properties are inherited from a universally available type hierarchy for predicates. The conceptual structure of this analysis of causatives reflects the author's belief that languages are much more similiar in their functional-semantic than in their categorial-phrase structural properties.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The editors thank the authors for submitting their articles and their indices, often under considerable time pressure and tight deadlines, as well as the external reviewers (you know who you are) for their timely and thorough reviews of the articles included in this volume. For proofreading and assistance in the preparation of the index the editors thank Ms. Stephanie Schwarz. We also acknowledge the assistance of the editors at Academic Press in the preparation of this volume and their reminding us and the authors that the value of any collection is intimately tied to its timely publication. Erhard Hinrichs Andreas Kathol Tsuneko Nakazawa
REFERENCES Abeille, A. and D. Godard (1994). The complementation of tense auxiliaries in French. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 157-172. Stanford University. CSLI Publications/SLA, Stanford, CA. Bech, G. (1955). Studien iiber das deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Danske Historiskfilologiske Meddelelser 35, 2. Butt, M. (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford University. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, Vol. 153. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Geach, P. (1972). A program for syntax. In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, 483-497. Reidel, Dordrecht. Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax—generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Gunter Narr, Tubingen.
xviii
Preface
Hinrichs, E. and T. Nakazawa (1989). Flipped out: AUX in German. In Papers from the 25th Meeting, 193-202, Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994). Partial VP and Split NP Topicalization in German: An HPSG Analysis. In E. Hinrichs, D. Meurers, and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Partial-VP and Split-NP Topicalization in German—An HPSG Analysis and Its Implementation. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Vol. 58. Johnson, M. (1986). A GPSG account of VP structure in German. Linguistics 24, 871-882. Kaplan, R. and J. Bresnan (1982). Lexical Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 173-281. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. (Also appeared in Dalrymple et al. (1995), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 29-130. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.) Kathol, A. (1995). Linearization-Based German Syntax, Dissertation, Ohio State University. Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154-169. Miller, P., and I. A. Sag. (1995). Une analyse lexicaliste des affixes pronominaux en francais. Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 24, 135-171. Monachesi, P. (1993). Object clitics and clitic climbing in Italian HPSG grammar. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 437-442, Utrecht. Moorgat, M. (1997). Categorial type logics. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Moorgat, M. (1984). A Fregean restriction on metarules. In C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 14, 306-325. GLSA, Amherst, MA. Moortgat, M., and R. Oehrle (1994). Adjacency, dependency, and order. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Amsterdam Colloquium. Nishida, C. 1991. A non-transformational analysis of clitic-climbing in Spanish. In Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 395-409, Stanford University. CSLI Publications/SLA, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C. J., and I. A. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, and University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Reape, M. (1993). A Formal Theory of Word Order: A Case Study in West Germanic. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Rentier, G. M. (1994). A lexicalist approach to Dutch cross dependencies. In K. Beals, J. Denton, E. Knippen, L. Melnar, H. Suzuki, and E. Zeinfeld (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 376-390. Chicago Linguistic Society.
TWO KINDS OF COMPOSITION IN FRENCH COMPLEX PREDICATES ANNE ABEILLE* DANIELE GODARD IVAN A. SAG *TALANA, UFRL Universite Paris 7 75251 Paris cedex 05 France *CNRS Universite Lille 3 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq France Department of Linguistics Stanford University Stanford, California 94305
1. INTRODUCTION
Romance causative constructions, and French causatives in particular, have well-known properties which set them apart from other kinds of infinitival complementation. Their most distinctive property perhaps is the fact that pronominal clitics interpreted as semantic arguments of the infinitival verbal complement appear attached to the causative verb. This phenomenon is illustrated in (Ib); le, the cliticized counterpart of the NP Proust in (la) and the semantic argument of lire, obligatorily occurs attached to the causative verb. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax
1
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
2
Abeille et al.
(1) a. Paul fera lire Proust aux eleves de terminate. Paul make-fut to-read Proust to-the students of senior-year 'Paul will make the senior year students read Proust.' b. Paul le fera lire aux eleves de terminale. Paul it make-fut to-read to-the students of senior-year 'Paul will make the senior year students read it.' c. *Paul fera le lire aux eleves de terminale. Paul make-fut it to-read to-the students of senior-year (same interpretation as (lb)) This situation contrasts with the classical complementation found in (2), where the pronominal clitic cannot attach to the main verb convaincra.1 (2) a. Paul convaincra Marie de lire Proust. Paul convince-fut Marie of to-read Proust 'Paul will convince Marie to read Proust.' b. Paul convaincra Marie de le lire. Paul convince-fut Marie of it to-read 'Paul will convince Marie to read it.' c. *Paul le convaincra Marie de lire. Paul it convince-fut Marie of to-read (same interpretation as (2b)) A similar situation holds for the French tense auxiliaries AVOIR and ETRE, which also exhibit "clitic climbing":2 (3) a. Paul a lu Proust. 'Paul has read Proust.' b. Paul I'a lu. Paul it has read 'Paul has read it.' c. *Paul a le lu. (4) a. Paul est parti a Rome. 'Paul has gone to Rome.' b. Paul y est parti. Paul there is gone 'Paul has gone there.' c. *Paul est y parti. These contrast with other auxiliaries such as aller (near future) or venir (near past) which do not allow clitic climbing in Modern French: (5) a. Paul va lire Proust. Paul is-going to-read Proust
Composition in French CPs
3
b. Paul va le lire. Paul goes it to-read 'Paul is going to read it.' c. *Paul le va lire. (6) a. Paul vient de partir a Rome. Paul comes of to-leave for Rome 'Paul has just left for Rome.' b. Paul vient d'y partir. Paul comes of-there to-leave 'Paul has just left for there.' c. *Paul y vient de partir. Both causative and tense auxiliary constructions have been analyzed as complex predicates in various frameworks. (For early proposals, see Emonds, 1978 (on French auxiliaries), Aissen and Perlmutter, 1983, and Zubizarretta, 1985, inter alia.) However, there are important differences between the two constructions. For example, the causative verb has its own role-assigned subject while the tense auxiliary can be analyzed as a subject-to-subject raising verb. Also, the causative verb introduces a new predication while the tense auxiliary only contributes tense and aspect information to the predicate denoted by the past participle. And, finally, some clitics can stay on the infinitival verb after FAIRE, while no clitics can be realized on the past participle. In this paper, we focus on this third contrasting property. We present an account of this difference between the two kinds of complex predicates in terms of two different ways the two predicates share grammatical information, or two different types of what we will call "argument composition." It has long been known (Kayne, 1975; Hyman and Zimmer, 1976; Rouveret and Vergnaud, 1980) that clitics are not always attached to the causative verb in French. In fact, while they must be so attached in most instances, e.g., (Ib), there are cases where they must attach to the infinitival verb, or else may occur in both positions.3 (7a) and (7b) illustrate the downstairs attachment of idiomatic and reflexive clitics, respectively: (7) a. Cette decision va faire en avoir marre This decision goes to-make of-it to-have enough aux Guyannais. to-the Guyanese 'This decision will make the Guyanese be fed up.' b. C'est une revelation brutale qui a fait It is a revelation sudden that has made
4
Abeille et al.
se convertir Claudel. se to-convert Claudel 'It is a sudden revelation that made Claudel be converted.' In construction with tense auxiliaries, on the other hand, these same clitics must occur attached to the auxiliary verb: (8) a. Les Guyannais en ont eu mane. the Guyanese of-it have had enough 'The Guyanese got fed up.' b. Claudel s'est convent. Claudel se is converted 'Claudel was converted.' We propose a solution to this set of contrasts in terms of two different ways that predicates share their arguments. In the framework of Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag, 1987, 1994), verbs have an argument structure (ARG-ST) specification: a list of elements (syntactico-semantic complexes called synsems) that are dependent upon the verb. In addition, a verb selects for the complements that it combines with syntactically via the COMPS feature, which is a sublist of the ARG-ST list. A (syntactic) complex predicate arises whenever the ARG-ST list of a verb A includes a predicative word B and B's arguments.4 Given these constructs, our proposal is that there are two ways that a verb can share information with its lexical argument (a participle or infinitive in the two cases we discuss here): the verb can either require that part of its argument structure be identical to that of the lexical argument or else it can require that part of its argument structure be identical to the COMPS list of the lexical argument. Since the combination of a predicate with a lexical argument is like composition of mathematical functions (a functor f1 combines with another functor f2, and the resulting functor f1 ° f2 then combines with the arguments of both f1 and f2), we may refer to analyses such as these as argument composition analyses. Let us further distinguish between the two kinds of argument composition just mentioned as follows: a-composition, if it involves the lexical argument's ARG-ST list; c-composition, if it involves the lexical argument's COMPS list.5 In the case of French, we will argue that the tense auxiliaries combine with their participial argument via a-composition. FAIRE (as well as other causative verbs), by contrast, combine with an infinitival form of a verb via c-composition. Thus, since the COMPS list is the vehicle for selecting overt complements, only complements that have a potential to be realized syntactically can climb in the composition causative construction.
Composition in French CPs
5
We analyze so-called pronominal clitics as inflectional affixes on the verb (Miller and Sag 1997) and propose that argument composition provides the basis for the account of clitic climbing (Abeille and Godard 1994, 1996a, Aissen and Perlmutter 1983, and Monachesi 1995). Indeed, argument composition makes it possible to systematically analyze the cliticized elements as arguments on the verb on which they appear. However, because infinitives bearing clitics are bona fide words in French, the argument composition analysis per se is not sufficient to rule out downstairs cliticization with causatives, even with the distinction between the two kinds of composition. Our analysis must include something more. The extra ingredient we posit is a distinction between two kinds of verb: basic and reduced.6 Intuitively, basic verbs are either those realized without clitics or else "intrinsic" clitic verbs, one of whose arguments must always be realized as a clitic. The basic verbs are thus those that realize SYNTACTICALLY all those arguments that CAN be realized syntactically. By contrast, the reduced verbs are those that realize AFFIXALLY at least one ARG-ST element that could have been realized syntactically. The intuition is that, in the case of most verbs, there is a basic mode of realization (arguments as overt subject or complements) and a secondary mode (one or more arguments is an affix). But because one of the arguments of an intrinsic clitic verb must always be affixal, their argument realization is not reduced or secondary in any way: intrinsic clitic verbs always exhibit a basic valence pattern. This distinction between basic and reduced verbs plays a crucial role in our account of discrepancies between the two kinds of complex predicates: composition causatives allow only basic verbs as their infinitival argument. In section 2, we expand the treatment of Romance pronominal clitics that has been developed in HPSG and distinguish between two types of words that can realize a given verbal lexeme: those with clitic morphology and those without it. In section 3, we analyze tense auxiliaries, providing an account of clitic realization on the auxiliary. In section 4 we discuss the infinitival complements of composition FAIRE, and explain how and why they are different from the complements of tense auxiliaries. This includes a discussion of intrinsic clitics. Section 5 focuses on the grammar of reflexives and leads up to an account of the "clitic-trapping" phenomenon.
2. A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF FRENCH CLITICS
Before explaining how the two kinds of argument composition can account for clitic climbing with causative and tense auxiliary constructions,
6
Abeille et al.
we briefly summarize the analysis of cliticization developed by Miller and Sag (1997), which, unlike its HPSG predecessors, makes no use of a valence reducing lexical rule. 2.1. French Clitics as Pronominal Affixes Verbal clitics in French have two main properties, which together constitute an apparent paradox. On the one hand, they are affixes, or inflectionally attached affixal pronouns (Miller, 1991; Auger, 1994). This analysis is based on a number of properties: (9) a. high degree of selection with respect to a host b. arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations c. morphophonological idiosyncrasies d. rigid and idiosyncratic ordering e. lexical phonological rules applying to clitic-host combinations f. the impossibility of clitics attaching to a coordination of verbs On the other hand, as we know, clitics do not always occur on the verb which they are an argument of. Some of them must attach to a causative verb (as in (1)), and all of them must attach to a tense auxiliary (as in (3), (4), and (8)), rather than to the participle that selects for them. The intuitive solution to this paradox that we adopt is the argument sharing or "composition" analysis of FAIRE and the tense auxiliaries, according to which arguments of the verbal complement (infinitive or participle) are also arguments of the embedding predicate (FAIRE or the tense auxiliary). Realization of an argument as a pronominal affix on the embedding predicate is thus an alternative to realization as an overt complement. Before presenting the composition analysis, we sketch in broad outline the new treatment of cliticization in French, which builds directly on suggestions made to us by Gosse Bouma.7 2.2. Types of Words The affixal analysis of clitics led to an analysis in terms of a lexical rule (Miller and Sag, 1995; Monachesi, 1995). This LR allowed for an alternation between basic verbal forms (subcategorizing for overt complements) and verbal forms bearing clitics with reduced subcategorization frames. Here we propose a related, but distinct analysis stated in terms of constraints on lexical types. We begin by partitioning the type synsem (the type of the syntacticosemantic complexes that appear on all valence and ARG-ST lists in HPSG) into the various subtypes shown in (10).
Composition in French CPs
7
The most fundamental type of synsem here is canonical). A constraint on signs (i.e., on all words and phrases) requires that they must have canon synsems; thus canon is intuitively the type associated with all overt elements that combine syntactically with heads. This contrasts most directly with the type noncan(onical). And all the noncan synsem types in (10) correspond to arguments that are not realized as overt (sign) expressions, but rather as clitics (the type aff(ixal)) or as gaps (the arguments that are extracted in filler-gap constructions). The type aff is further divided into personal pronominal affixes (p-aff) and anaphoric affixes (a-aff) for reflexives. The choice of synsem type for a subcategorized complement is not in general restricted, i.e., words generally select for arguments without restricting them to being canon or noncan. HPSG is a lexicalist theory, incorporating the principle of Strong Lexicalism (see Scalise, 1984:101ff). We will assume here that each inflected word must belong simultaneously to three compatible types: (1) a (CLITIC-)REALIZATION (REALZN) type—either plain-word (pl-wd) or cliticized-word (cl-wd), with a further distinction between two subtypes of cl-wd: su(bject)-cl-wd and n(on)s(ubject)-cl-wd; (2) an INFLECTIONAL (INFLN) type, e.g., 3sg-presindic-ub, 2sg-imper-ub, etc.; and (3) a LEXEME (lxm) type that specifies the phonological stem, part of speech, argument structure, and meaning common to a family of inflected forms.8 The hierarchically organized verbal LEXEME types correspond to what are normally regarded as lexical entries. The hierarchy of words is thus partially described in terms of the three partitions indicated in (11).
8
Abeille et al.
Following Wechsler (1995) and Davis (1996), much of the information in the lexical description of a LEXEME type—in particular information about the linking of ARG-ST members to semantic roles—is predictable on semantic grounds. A lexemic description thus need include little more than a specification of phonology, grammatical category, and meaning. (12) illustrates the French lexeme LAYER. (Here and throughout, the feature TRANS is used to specify transitivity.)
The inflectional types of French are governed by constraints such as those shown in (13). (F3spi here designates the morphological function that maps each verbal lexeme to its 3sg-pres-indic-ub inflected form.)
The description of the lexeme LAYER in (12) can thus unify with the information in (13) to yield the more complete (but still partial) description in (14).
Composition in French CPs
9
Note that the ARG-ST list in (14) does not specify what subtype of synsem the arguments must be, yet constraints on the agreement properties of the subject argument have been "unified into" the partial word description for lave in (14), which specifies an I-FORM value in addition to the STEM value inherited from the lexeme. We assume further that inflectional information always combines in this way, i.e., monotonically. By contrast, any phenomenon involving a change in the number of arguments in the ARG-ST list will be treated as derivational, rather than inflectional, i.e., in terms of a relation between distinct lexemes. The lexeme description in (12) is quite sparse, making no mention of the valence features SUBJ and COMPS, whose values are systematically related to the ARG-ST list. Nor do the inflectional types fix this relation. Rather, this job is left for the third dimension of lexical structure in French, that of REALIZATION. The first type, pl-wd, is subject to the following constraints:9
The constraint in (15) guarantees that pl-wds have an argument structure list corresponding to the simple concatenation of the values of the valence
10
Abeille et al.
features SUBJ and COMPS; the SUBJ list must furthermore contain exactly one element. Since the SUBJ and COMPS values in general get "cancelled" as a head combines with overt complements and the subject, this constraint has the effect of ensuring that all the arguments of a pl-wd are realized syntactically, rather than affixally.10 As for the type cl-wd, this is subject to the constraints shown in (16).11
(16) first requires that all the members of the COMPS list be of type non-aff; i.e., these complements must either be gaps or else canons (overt complements). (16) also guarantees that SUBJ and COMPS lists add up to be the ARG-ST list, except that one or more ARG-ST elements of type aff must be absent from the SUBJ or COMPS list, i.e., "shuffled in" to constitute the ARG-ST list. Whenever an argument is of type aff and therefore does not belong to either the SUBJ or the COMPS list, the cliticized verb is realized with appropriate pronominal affixation. This effect is obtained via the function F^^, which determines the form of cl-wds only. PPRAF, defined roughly as shown in (17), takes as input an inflected form (as determined by the relevant inflectional type) and adds prefkal or suffkal clitics (or no clitic form in the case of past participles) to determine the FORM value of a given cl-wd:
The definition of AFF-CL given by Miller and Sag (1997) uses a template to fix affix position. The motivation for having FpRAF vacuously applying to past participle forms is discussed in section 3.
Composition in French CPs
11
The two subtypes of cl-type are subject to the following further constraints:
These constraints guarantee that a su-cl-wd (e.g., je-lave or je-le-lave) must have an empty SUBJ list and a first argument that is of type aff (allowing for the possibility that other arguments are also of type aff). A ns-cl-wd (e.g., le-lave), by contrast, must have an element on its SUBJ list (and hence combines with a canonical subject locally or else has an extracted subject) and an aff elsewhere in its ARG-ST list (because the ARG-ST list of all cl-wds must include at least one aff element that is not on any valence list). Finally, notice that the constraints in (15) and (16) make reference to an additional HEAD feature type distinction: every verb that is a pl-wd is specified as basic-verb (bas-vb), whereas the DEFAULT value for cl-wds is reduced-verb (red-vb).12 This distinction is crucial for our treatment of composition FAIRE. In virtue of the fact that it selects an infinitival argument specified as [HEAD bas-ub], it will only allow uncliticized verbs (pl-wds) as its argument, or else cliticized intrinsic clitic verbs (see below). In light of these constraints, a form of LAVER that is both 3sg-pres-indic-ub and pl-wd will obey not only the constraints in (14), but in fact all the constraints shown in (20).
12
Abeille et al.
This word (lexical description) enters into our analysis of sentences such as Jean lave les enfants ('Jean washes the children'). And a su-cl-word of this same inflectional and lexemic type obeys not only the constraint in (16), but also other constraints as in (21).
Here the SUBJ and COMPS values both are the empty list, and hence (21) cannot head a VP with an overt NP complement (complements must correspond to members of the head's COMPS list in HPSG); nor can it combine with an overt subject NP. The presence of the two p-aff elements in the argument structure of the verb triggers the desired morphological realization. There is a clear intuitive sense in which this cl-wd realization of the lexeme LAVER is a "reduced" realization of the lexeme (recall that the lexeme itself is underspecified with respect to syntactic-morphological realization). The situation is different in the case of intrinsic clitic verbs. 2.3. Intrinsic Clitics Intrinsic (idiomatic) clitics represent complements which can only be realized affkally. Some examples of such expressions are (with the intrinsic clitic in boldface): en vouloir a quelqu'un ('have a grudge against someone'), en avoir mane de quelque chose ('to be fed up with something'), en revenir de quelque chose ('to be disappointed with something'), en voir des vertes et des pas mures ('to have hard times'), n'y voir que du feu ('to be completely taken in'), y voir clair ('things are clear'), la bailler belle ('to tell a tall story'), le porter beau ('to look dapper'), se la couler douce ('to have it
Composition in French CPs
13
easy'), se serrer la ceinture ('to tighten one's belt'). Some examples are shown in (39): (22) a. Jean en veut a tout le monde. Jean of-it wants to everybody 'Jean is angry at everybody.' b. Le responsable n'y vena que du feu. the manager in-it see-fut only fire 'The manager will be completely taken in.' Intrinsic clitics by definition never alternate with canonical arguments. The lexeme for an intrinsic clitic verb thus differs from those of other verbs in that it specifies one of its arguments as being of type aff. In addition, these verbs state lexemically that they are of type cl-wd, which has as a consequence not only that realization as a pl-wd is ruled out, but also that intrinsic clitic verbs never allow aff elements on their COMPS list (this is one of the constraints on the type cl-wd given in (16) above). This effect is crucial, as we shall see below. Finally, the HEAD value of an intrinsic clitic verb is lexically specified as bas-vb. This will also play a role in our analysis: it will have the effect of overriding the specification [HEAD red-vb] that is given as a default for cl-wds in (16). For example, en-vouloir a ('be angry with') has the following lexemic description:
Thus the cl-wds from this lexeme, unlike those from most verbal lexemes, are specified as [HEAD bas-vb]. This property, as we will see, will endow such cl-wds with many of the distributional properties of pl-wds, including crucially the possibility of being an argument of composition faire. The lexeme in (23) is also transitive (although this lexeme does not have an
14
Abeille et al.
accusative complement on its ARG-ST list, (see note 19)), a fact that will determine the realization of the causee when an infinitive form of this lexeme is embedded under composition faire (see section 4).
3. COMPOSITION WITH TENSE AUXILIARIES
Abeille and Godard (1994, 1996a) defend an analysis of tense auxiliary constructions in French in terms of a flat structure where the auxiliary is the head and takes as complements the (bare) past participle and the complements of the latter. This analysis is motivated by several phenomena that set tense auxiliaries apart from control or other raising verbs (taking VP complements) in French: Constituency tests (pronominalization, question, cleft, VP preposing/ deletion) Tough constructions Position and scope of manner adverbs Coordination The proposed structure for a sentence like Paul a lave les enfants is the following:
In our present analysis, the auxiliary specifies a sharing of ARG-ST members (rather than COMPS members) with the participle. The use of a-composition rather than c-composition introduces no change in the phrase structure, but it is the key to accounting for the difference between the tense auxiliaries and FAIRE. Since tense auxiliaries involve a-composition, the arguments of the past participle are also arguments of the auxiliary verb. Hence clitic realization on the auxiliary (clitic "climbing") is accounted for straightforwardly in terms of the following (simplified) lexemic descriptions
h
of the tense auxiliaries:
The past participle arguments of tense auxiliaries share all of their arguments with the auxiliary, including the subject ( H ) (which is further constrained by various inflectional types, as we have seen). This analysis gives the right analytic results: the auxiliary "inherits" all the arguments of the participle (this is indicated by the two identities labelled 1 and GO in (25a, b)). In addition, the auxiliary and its participle argument share their semantic content ( m ), to which the auxiliary adds only temporal or aspectual constraints. The feature V-AUX is the vehicle for auxiliary selection. (25a, b) specify that the two tense auxiliaries take past participles bearing the specification [V-AUX avoir] and [V-AUX etre], respectively. By default, past participles are specified as [V-AUX avoir], thus most verbal lexemes give rise to past participles that cannot combine with EIRE. The past participle complements in (25a, b) are further constrained: they must
16
Abeille et al.
be [WEIGHT lite] (hence nonphrasal);13 and they must be [HEAD bas-vb]. This is enough in the general case to ensure that cliticization happens only on the auxiliary. In Jean les a laves ('Jean has washed them'), the form les-a has the following description (ignoring CONTENT):
The past participle is a pl-wd; hence its argument structure is the concatenation of its SUBJ and COMPS list. Furthermore, the only way the participle can possibly be a complement of the auxiliary is for it to be a pl-wd. Indeed, because LAVER is not an intrinsic clitic verb, this is the only way it can be specified as [HEAD bas-ub] (cf. (15)), which is necessary for it to be a complement of the auxiliary. If it were a cl-wd (with the p-aff present in the ARG-ST list but not the COMPS list), then it would be [HEAD red-vb], in accordance with the default constraint on cl-wds. In this case, it could not serve as complement of auxiliary avoir. On the other hand, if one or more arguments of the auxiliary is of type aff, then no finite words formed from the auxiliary can be a pl-wd: if such a word were a pl-wd, then it would also have an affix on its COMPS list and this would prevent the verb from combining with a corresponding overt complement (all overt complements are [SYNSEM canon]—see above). Thus when a past participle is not from an intrinsic clitic verbal lexeme, it must be a pl-wd; hence the clitics must be realized as pronominal affixes on the auxiliary, never on the participle.
Composition in French CPs
17
By contrast, when the participle is from an intrinsic clitic lexeme, it must always be a cl-wd. Yet, because intrinsic clitic verbs are lexemically specified as [HEAD bas-ub], they give rise to participles such as that in (27):
And this is compatible with AVOIR, which will compose all members of the ARG-ST list in (27) including affixes. The participle in (27) will not realize any clitics, however, because FPRAF attaches no affixes to past participles (see the definition of FPRAF in (17)). Once again, the finite auxiliary has to be a cl-wd realizing the clitics that are members of its argument structure via a-composition. The apparent result is the same, e.g., sentences such as (28), but the type assigned to the participle in this case is ns-cl-wd. (28) Jean en a voulu a tout le monde. Jean of-it has wanted to everybody 'Jean was angry at everybody.'
4. COMPOSITION FAIRE
Abeille et al. (1997; to appear), following a suggestion by Hyman and Zimmer (1976), contrast two types of causative structure. The first of these, illustrated in (1) (repeated here as (29)), is a composition structure, where the causative verb is the head of a flat VP and subcategorizes for an NP (the causee), an infinitive and (via composition) the complements of that infinitive.14
18
Abeille et al.
(29) a. Paul fera lire Proust aux eleves de terminate. Paul make-fut to-read Proust to-the students of senior-year 'Paul will make the senior year students read Proust.' b. Paul le fera lire aux eleves de terminate. Paul it make-tut to-read to-the students of senior-year 'Paul will make the senior year students read it.' c. *Paul fera le lire aux eleves de terminale. Paul make-fut it to-read to-the students of senior-year (same interpretation as (lb)) This contrasts with the second structure for causatives, similar to the VP complement structure usually posited for verbs like CONVAINCRE, as in (2) (repeated here as (30)): (30) a. Paul convaincra Marie [de lire Proust]. Paul convince-fut Marie [of to-read Proust] 'Paul will convince Marie to read Proust.' b. Paul convaincra Marie [de le lire]. Paul convince-fut Marie [of it to-read] 'Paul will convince Marie to read it.' c. *Paul le convaincra Marie de lire. Paul it-convince-fut Marie of to-read (same interpretation as (2b)) Here the verb combines with two complements: an NP controller and an infinitival VP. Abeille et al. argue that the double complementation analysis, which is widely accepted for LAISSER and perception verbs, should be extended to FAIRE as well. (See also Tasmowski, 1985, and Miller, 1991.) The VP complementation structure for (control) FAIRE, which is subject to considerable variation across speakers, differs from the composition structure in that the object controller must be pronominal: (31) a. *Paul fera les eleves de terminale [lire Proust]. 'Paul will make the senior year students read Proust.' b. Paul les fera [lire Proust]. Paul them make-fut [to-read Proust] 'Paul will make them read Proust.' The VP complementation structure also differs in freely allowing clitics to be realized on the downstairs verb heading the VP complement: (32) Paul les fera [le lire]. Paul them make-fut [it to-read] 'Paul will make them read it.'
Composition in French CPs
19
On the other hand, cases which we will show below to be unambiguously instances of composition FAIRE, such as (29b,c), only allow upstairs realization of the clitics on the causative verb.
4.1. Composition Causatives and Upstairs Cliticization If the double complementation analysis is correct, as we believe it to be, it changes the way we should look at the cliticization facts in causative constructions. One of our central claims is that composition causatives never allow downstairs cliticization of the sort shown in (32). From this perspective, so-called "clitic climbing" is not optional in French. Rather, there is an alternation between two different structures; and in each structure there is a determinate position for the realization of clitics. There are a number of other properties that distinguish the composition structure from the VP complementation structure. Most notable among these is the well-known fact that the realization of the causee depends on the transitivity of the infinitival verb: it is a dative NP (Np[dat]) if the v is transitive (as in (29) or (33a)); it is an accusative NP (NP[acc]) if the v is intransitive (as in (33b)):15 (33) a. Paul f e r a lire Proust aux/* les eleves de terminale. Paul make-fut to-lire Proust to-the/*the students of senior-year 'Paul will make the senior year students read Proust.' b. Paul fera travailler les/*aux enfants. Paul make-fut to-work the/*to-the children 'Paul will make the children work.' The flat structure analysis, where (an inflected form of) FAIRE, the infinitival and its complements, and the causee are all sisters in a single VP (Morin, 1978; Aissen and Perlmutter, 1983; Legendre, 1987; Miller, 1991; Koenig, 1994), provides the basis for a simple account of these properties (which are surveyed in more detail in Abeille et al., in preparation). In what follows, we will focus on the analysis of the composition causative. In our analysis, both the causee and the complements subcategorized by the infinitival v are complements of FAIRE.16 Composition FAIRE takes as its syntactic arguments (a) the causer, (b) the infinitival v, (c) the causee, and (d) the complements which the infinitival v subcategorizes for.17 Moreover, the causee is coindexed with the (unrealized) subject of the infinitival v, as in ordinary control constructions, and it is underspecified for case. The correct realization of the causee (accusative with intransitive infinitive;
20
Abeille et al.
dative with transitive infinitive) is guaranteed by the existence of the two distinct lexemes illustrated in (34).18
(34 ) a. Composition FAIRE ( intransitive complement):
b. Composition Faire (transitive complement):....................
In both of these patterns for composition FAIRE,19 the argument structure ends in a sublist (tagged El in both (34a, b)) that is identified with the COMPS list of the infinitive argument. Note that this differs crucially from the tense auxiliaries, whose analogous ARG-ST sublist is identified with the ARG-ST of the past participle. (35) and (36) show partial tree representations of the VPS in Paul fait lire Proust awe eleues de terminate ('Paul makes the senior year students read Proust') and Paul fait rire les enfants ('Paul makes the children laugh').20
Composition in French CPs
21
In these structures, the inflected form of FAIRE is a pl-wd—without clitic morphology. Clitic climbing is straightforwardly explained under the composition analysis, since the elements cliticized onto FAIRE are analyzed as arguments of FAIRE. In (37), for example, le-fait is a ns-cl-wd with four elements on its ARG-ST including the p-aff, but only two elements on its COMPS list, as shown in (38). (37) Paul le fait lire aux eleves. 'Paul makes the students read it.'
22
Abeille et al.
The infinitive lire in (37), on the other hand, is a pl-wd, with a p-aff on both its COMPS and ARG-ST lists (arising from unification with the relevant ARG-ST element of le-fait). Cliticization on the infinitival is ruled out in this case: if the complement v were a ns-cl-wd (with an aff element on its ARG-ST but not on its COMPS list), then it would be specified as [HEAD red-ub] (by the default constraint in (16)) and could not be a complement of FAIRE. There are other cases, however, where cliticization is intuitively "basic," and hence is allowed on the infinitive. It is to these that we now turn. 4.2. Composition Causatives and Downstairs Cliticization We can now deal with those clitics that occur on the infinitival v complement of composition FAIRE. These are either intrinsic clitic or reflexive clitic verbs.21 The examples in (39) illustrate the basic fact that intrinsic clitics are realized downstairs in the composition causative construction.22 (39) a. Une telle decision fera en vouloir a such decision make-fut of-them to-want a tout le monde a Jean. to everybody to Jean 'Such a decision will make Jean angry at everybody.' b. Cette manoeuvre a fait n'y voir que du feu this maneuver has made in-it to-see only fire au resonsable. to-the manager 'This maneuver caused the manager to be completely taken in.' c. La crise fait se serrer la ceinture a tout le monde. the crisis makes se-dat to-tighten the belt to everybody 'The crisis is making everybody tighten their belt.' It is clear that we have here instances of composition FAIRE, since the idiomatic verbs are transitive and the causee is realized as an Np[dat]. These facts follow from our analysis. Composition faire, like the tense auxiliaries, selects a bas-vb complement. As we saw earlier, the intrinsic clitic verbs and reflexive verbs are the only cl-wds that are nonetheless specified as [HEAD bas-vb]. Thus any infinitive formed from an intrinsic clitic verb or reflexive verb can function as the complement of faire. The key to explaining why the clitics of intrinsic clitic verbs cannot climb up to attach to composition FAIRE is the assumption that FAIRE involves c-composition. Given that the complements of intrinsic clitic verbs must all be non-aff(the constraint in (16) requires this of all cl-wds), intrinsic clitics
Composition in French CPs
23
can only belong to the ARG-ST list of the infinitive—never to its COMPS list. Since composition FAIRE inherits its complements from the COMPS list of the infinitival, it follows that it can never compose an intrinsic clitic into its argument structure and hence can never realize an intrinsic clitic as a pronominal affix. This is how we block (40): (40) *Qa en f e r a vouloir a tout le monde a Jean. 'That will make everybody mad at Jean.' Recall that this behavior is crucially different from what happens with tense auxiliaries, which involve a-composition (sharing of ARG-ST lists) rather than c-composition. The tense auxiliaries, as we saw in section 3, incorporate intrinsic clitics into their argument structure like any other clitics, and hence may realize them as pronominal affixes. Thus the difference between c-composition and a-composition accounts for the fact that intrinsic clitics climb onto tense auxiliaries, but not onto composition FAIRE.
The behavior of reflexive clitics is similar to that of intrinsic clitic verbs. Their properties are sufficiently complex, however, to warrant separate discussion.
5. REFLEXIVE VERBS
Reflexive clitics are the most discussed subset of clitics occuring downstairs with composition FAIRE. The data have been oversimplified in the literature (e.g., Kayne, 1975; Grimshaw, 1982), which assesses all reflexives as equally possible in composition FAIRE complementation. This is in fact an important area of variation, where speakers have no hesitation about their own judgments and express disbelief when learning that others may have different judgments. Although a complete description of reflexive verbs is outside the scope of this paper, it is nonetheless necessary to go into a bit of relevant background. Let us call reflexive verbs the verbs which host reflexive clitics and which have the form se + verb, where se stands for any reflexive clitic. Following Grevisse (1969:549-555), and leaving aside possible further semantic distinctions, we distinguish between three classes of reflexive verbs: (a) "True" reflexives, where se alternates with an accusative or dative argument (b) "Medio-passives," where se appears to be a grammatical marker, not an argument (c) "Intrinsic" reflexives, which only have a reflexive form
24
Abeille et al.
These are illustrated in (41):23 (41) a. Jean se lave. Jean se washes 'Jean washes himself.' b. Ce livre se vend bien. this book se sells well 'This book sells well.' c. Jean s' evanouit. Jean se faints 'Jean is fainting.' These reflexive clitics can all appear on the infinitives that function as complements of composition FAIRE:24 (42) a. Marie a fait se laver les enfants. Marie has made se to-wash the children 'Marie made the children wash themselves.' b. Le snobisme fait se vendre bien les classiques. the snobbery makes se to-sell well the classics 'Snobbery makes the classics sell well.' c. La chaleur a fait s'evanouir Paul. the heat has made se-to-faint Paul 'The heat made Paul faint.' Morphologically, the status of se is clear: it belongs to the set of verbal clitics, and has its position in the clitic template (Miller and Sag (1997)). However, it is not at all clear whether it should be treated as a pronominal affix or as a "marker"—the morphological reflex of a particular verbal type. In fact there are two families of analyses of Romance reflexives, which both have, as Alsina (1996) observes, certain strengths and weaknesses. In the first type of analysis, reflexive verbs do not differ in any essential way from other verbs that host clitics; the difference lies in the binding properties of the clitic, which must be coindexed with the verb's subject. Under the second approach, the reflexive clitic is simply an indicator of certain specific properties that make reflexive verbs different from other clitic-bearing verbs. It is natural that these two kinds of analysis should have arisen, as both are motivated by a desire to provide a unified analysis of a single morphological entity, in spite of the considerable syntactic and semantic heterogeneity of reflexive verbs. While we acknowledge the diversity in the behavior of reflexive verbs, we maintain that the reflexive morpheme in French corresponds systematically to an element of the verb's ARG-ST. The behavior of certain reflexive verbs in causative and impersonal constructions for many speakers, as well as the selection of auxiliary ETRE,
Composition in French CPs
25
may provide some insight into the recurrent intuition that reflexive clitics are somewhat different from other clitics. Certainly no other clitic causes a verb to change the auxiliary verb it selects (a change that is true for all reflexives in standard French). No other clitic changes argument structure (as medio-passives do: their subject is the complement of the input verb). And no other clitic alters the transitivity of a verb (as do medio-passives and certain cases of true reflexives). Finally, the reflexive clitic does not correspond to a semantic argument, at least in intrinsic reflexives and medio-passives. For all these reasons, it has been called a marker (Grimshaw, 1982; Descles et al., 1986; Koenig, 1994). However, other properties indicate that se corresponds to an element of the ARG-ST, just like other complement clitics. Consider for instance participle agreement. In most cases, the (active) past participle in French agrees in number and gender with a non-canonical accusative complement.25 With most reflexive verbs, it is impossible to decide whether the participle agrees with the subject or the reflexive element. However, dative reflexivization makes it clear that these participles follow the general pattern. Thus (43a), where the accusative reflexive induces participle agreement, contrasts with (43b), which contains a dative reflexive and a non-agreeing participle, and with (44), where the participle agrees with the gap, rather than the subject: (43) a. Marie s'est coupee. Marie-fsg se-acc-is cut-fsg 'Marie cut herself.' b. Marie s'est coupe le doigt. Marie-fsg se-dat-is cut-msg the finger 'Marie cut her finger.' (44) la maison qu'il s'est construite. the house-fsg that he-msg se-dat-is built-fsg 'the house that he built for himself In our analysis, a past participle shows agreement with a noncan accusative element on its ARG-ST list (Abeille and Godard, 1996a; Miller and Sag, 1997). Since the participle of reflexive verbs follows the same pattern, this provides a reasonably clear indication that the ARG-ST contains an element corresponding to the reflexive, just as it does for clitics in general. Here we analyze the reflexive element in terms of an anaphor (an a-aff) bound by the subject of the verb.26 We know that different anaphors may have diverse antecedent conditions within the same language as well as cross-linguistically (see, e.g., Dalrymple 1993). In HPSG, Binding Principles are constraints on the (syntactic) argument structure (Pollard and Sag,
26
Abeille et al.
1992, 1994; Manning, 1994). Within this theory, the obligatory agreement illustrated above indicates that the argument structure of reflexive verbs contains an element coindexed with the subject, which corresponds to the reflexive clitic. We formulate Principle A of Binding theory for French as follows, with a-aff being the synsem type for s(ubject)-anaphors: (45) "Principle A" ("parameterized" for French): A locally (s-)commanded (s-)anaphor must be locally (s-)bound. A type hierarchy which is relevant here concerns the types of content for nominal categories, which includes the content of aff elements. Nonreflexive clitics have personal-pro content, while reflexive clitics have content of type anaphor. One final argument in favor of the claim that reflexive clitic verbs require a uniform analysis in spite of their apparent diversity is the fact that all reflexive verbs in standard French select auxiliary etre, in spite of their differences. We may thus assume the following constraint on past participles:27
Here an ana-list is a list that contains an a-aff element. So what (46) says is that any past participle containing an a-aff element must be specified as [V-AUX etre].28 We now turn to a more detailed consideration of the individual categories: intrinsic reflexives, true reflexives, and medio-passives.29
5.1. Intrinsic Reflexive Verbs Intrinsic reflexive verbs, like the one in (47), do not alternate with nonreflexive verbs, at least synchronically.30 (47) a. Julie s'euanouit souuent. 'Julie often faints.' b. *Julie evanouit (son esprit). 'Julie faints (her mind).' Traditional intrinsic reflexives are intransitives: not only do they cooccur with an accusative causee in causative constructions (as in (42c)), they also
Composition in French CPs
27
alternate with an impersonal verb: (48) a. Plusieurs personnes s''evanouissaient sous several persons se-faint-imperf-3pl under l'effet de la chaleur. the-effect of the heat 'Several people fainted because of the heat.' b. Ils' evanouissait plusieurs personnes sous it se-faint-imperf-3sg several persons under I'effet de la chaleur. the-effect of the heat 'There were several people fainting because of the heat.' Our analysis of verbs of this category is the same as our treatment of intrinsic clitic verbs, except that the [V-AUX etre] constraint applies to all participles formed from this lexeme:
Like other intrinsic clitic verbs, intrinsic reflexive verbs can be complements of composition FAIRE because they are lexemically specified as [HEAD bas-vb], and this value is inherited by their cliticized verbal forms. They do not allow clitic climbing with composition FAIRE because their COMPS list disallows aff-type elements (again because of the constraints on cl-wd in (16) above). The intrinsic clitic se thus cannot be attached to composition FAIRE, because it cannot be part of the COMPS list of the infinitive and hence cannot be inherited as an argument of FAIRE. 5.2. True Reflexives With true reflexive verbs, the clitic alternates with an argument, either an accusative or dative NP complement, in the same way as pronominal nonreflexive clitics do so. True reflexive verbs can occur as complements of FAIRE only for certain speakers (who we will refer to as "A-speakers"). Thus, there are two descriptions of true reflexive verbs: one for A-speakers, which treats them as bas-vb; and one for B-speakers, which analyzes them as red-vb (like other cliticized verbs).
28
Abeille et al.
Reflexive verbs are often characterized as intransitive in the literature. However, whereas medio-passives are always intransitive (see below), true reflexives are somewhat more complicated, as we will explain. We make use of two main criteria for transitivity: impersonal and causative constructions. If a given verb alternates with an impersonal verb and makes the causee appear as an accusative NP (in the composition causative), then that verb is intransitive. For A-speakers, who accept them as complements of FAIRE, true reflexives with an accusative affix are intransitive, since they cooccur with an unmarked causee (as in (42a)) and alternate with an impersonal verb:31 (50) a. Quelqu'un se lavait dans la fontaine. someone se wash-imperf-3sg in the fountain 'Someone was washing himself in the fountain.' b. Il se lavait quelqu'un dans la fontaine. it se wash-imperf-3sg someone in the fountain 'There was someone washing himself in the fountain.' However, the transitivity of true dative reflexives is independently determined. These verbs have the same transitivity as their nonreflexive counterparts. Thus the verb S'OFFRIR is transitive because OFFRIR is: (51) a. Certains journalistes s'offriront un exemplaire some journalists se-give-fut-3pl a copy des Memoires of-the Memoirs 'Some journalists will buy a copy of the Memoirs for themselves.' b. *Il s'offrira un exemplaire des Memoires it se-give-fut-3sg a copy of-the Memoirs certains journalistes. some journalists 'There will be some journalists who buy a copy of the Memoirs for themselves.' c. Lew profession fera s'offrir un exemplaire their job make-fut se-give a copy des Memoires a certains journalistes. of-the Memoirs to some journalists 'Their job will make some journalists buy a copy of the memoirs for themselves.' By contrast, for B-speakers, who do not accept true reflexive verbs under composition FAIRE, the impersonal usage in (50b) is also unacceptable. For A-speakers, then, we define a lexical rule that derives intransitive reflexive lexemes like (52) (with an accusative a-aff) from the corresponding basic transitive lexeme.32 The result is lexemes like the one shown
Composition in French CPs
29
in (52):
Furthermore, A-speakers have the constraint (53) in their grammar, which makes reflexives of the type bas-ub, and allows them to appear as complements of composition FAIRE.
Thus for the A variety, all reflexive verbs override the red-vb default for cl-wds and hence all reflexive verbs may appear in the composition causative.33 In addition, binding theory, which all words must obey, then guarantees that the two indices i and j in (52) must be identical. Thus an inflected form like se-laver inherits all the information in (52) and hence is a possible complement of composition FAIRE for A-speakers. B-speakers lack this rule; for them, se-laver must obey the default [HEAD red-vb] specification. Hence in this variety, there is no possibility of embedding true reflexives under composition FAIRE. For dative reflexives, where no change in transitivity is involved in any variety of French we are familiar with, there is no need to posit a lexical rule. Their behavior in all varieties is correctly predicted in the minimally different grammatical systems just discussed. To conclude our discussion of true reflexives and composition FAIRE, notice that the a-aff element is a member of the infinitive's ARG-ST list, but not its COMPS list. Therefore, it is not part of the ARG-ST of FAIRE. This means that true reflexives behave like the intrinsic reflexives: they attach
30
Abeille et al.
to tense auxiliaries (under a-composition), but never to FAIRE (under c-composition). Our analysis also has consequences for binding theory. The lexical description of composition FAIRE in (34a) above requires that the unrealized subject of the v[inf] is identified with the object of faire, (as in raising constructions). Thus, the argument structure of se laver in (42a), repeated here in (54a), where "i" is the index of the direct object of fait, is as shown in (54).
And when an Np[dat] causee (indexed as "k") cooccurs with a dative reflexive, the argument structure of a verb like s'acheter in (55a) is (55b):
Our binding principles thus correctly guarantee that all such examples receive the correct semantic interpretation.
5.3. Medio-Passives Medio-passives appear under a variety of names in the literature, (middle-se, inchoative reflexives, ergatives, neuter) some of which pertain to only a subset of the phenomena we treat here. As a class, medio-passive verbs alternate with transitive verbs, whose direct object NP corresponds to the subject of the medio-passive.34 The acceptability of medio-passives in the impersonal construction and the fact that they occur under FAIRE with an accusative causee (as in (42b)) together show that they must be analyzed as intransitive:35 (56) a. Beaucoup de livres se vendront ce mois-ci. many of books se sell-fut this month 'Many books will be sold this month.' b. Il se vendra beaucoup de livres ce mois-ci. it se sell-fut many of books this month 'There are many books that will be sold this month.'
Composition in French CPs
31
Since the argument structure, the transivity, and the content of mediopassives and their corresponding basic lexemes are different, we propose a lexical rule for medio-passive lexemes which we formulate as follows:
This lexical rule supresses the first element in the ARG-ST of the input; the NP complement is thus promoted to first position in the output's ARG-ST. It also adds an a-aff complement (realized as se) in the output.36 There is a complex semantic effect of the medio-passive, but we make no attempt to describe it here. The transitive lexeme VENDRE ('to sell') thus undergoes the MedioPassive LR and the resulting lexeme gives rise to inflected words like the following:
32
Abeille et al.
This infinitive can function as the complement of composition FAIRE because it is classified as bas-vb. Koenig and Jurafsky (1994) point out that using lexical rules for medio-passive may raise a problem when one considers the interaction with the lexical rule used for impersonal constructions. Given that the subject is third person, and se does not distinguish between singular and plural antecedent, it is difficult to know whether the antecedent of se is the impersonal subject il or the complement NP which is the subject of the corresponding basic transitive verb. However, the difference appears when the subject of the verb is a first or second person NP. Consider then the impersonal verb in (59), whose argument toi has a metonymic interpretation ('your books,' rather than 'you'):37 (59) a.
Il ne se vend bien que toi it-3sg ne se sell-pres-3sg well only you-2sg dans ce salon. in this meeting 'The only one (whose books are) selling well in this meeting is you.' b. * Il ne te vend bien que toi it-3sg ne te-2sg sell-pres-3sg well only you-2sg dans ce salon. in this meeting
This example shows that the antecedent of the reflexive clitic is the impersonal subject il, which is a third person, while the complement is a second person pronoun. If the Medio-Passive LR output were to explicitly force coindexation (which entails sharing of person features) of its subject and the anaphor, then this would incorrectly require the agreement pattern of (59b) in the impersonal. But notice that the ouput of our Medio-Passive LR does not stipulate coindexation. This is unnecessary because precisely this coindexation is independently required (on words) by Principle A of the binding theory. The difficulty noted by Koenig and Jurafsky thus disappears given our analysis. In other words, the interaction between the Impersonal Subject Lexical Rule and the (one or two) lexical rules whose output is a reflexive verb is correctly described if none of these rules specifies the index of the a-aff element on the ARG-ST. Principle A, through its interaction with other independently motivated aspects of our grammar of French, thus plays a crucial role in the analysis of medio-passive constructions.38
Composition in French CPs
33
5.4. Clitic Trapping with Composition FAIRE We can now turn to one remaining question about downstairs clitics with FAIRE: clitic trapping. When a clitic stays on the infinitival, all complement clitics (including nonreflexive nonintrinsic ones) must stay downstairs as well:39 (60) a. Marie a fait s'en souvenir Jean. Marie has made se-of-it to-remember Jean 'Marie made Jean remember it.' b. *Marie en a fait se souvenir Jean. Marie of-it has made se to-remember Jean c. Qa lui fera leur en vouloir. this him-dat make-fut them-dat of-it to-want 'This will make him get annoyed at them.' d. *Qa leur fera en vouloir a Jean. this them dat make-fut of-it to-want to Jean 'This will make Jean get annoyed at them.' This puzzling behavior is straightforwardly accounted for in our analysis, given the constraint that the COMPS list of a cl-wd can never contain aff elements. This means that if a complement of a cl-wd is inherited by FAIRE, it cannot be of type aff, so it cannot be realized as a clitic on FAIRE. Thus the only clitics that may appear on the causative in these examples (lui in (60c)) correspond to arguments of FAIRE (e.g., the causee) that are not themselves part of the argument structure of the infinitival complement.
6. CONCLUSION Drawing on previous analyses of complex predicates in French, we have proposed an account of the contrast between tense auxiliaries and causative verbs with respect to downstairs clitic realization. We have defined a small set of verbal types. On the one hand we distinguish verbs bearing clitic morphology (Miller and Sag (1997)) from uncliticized verbs. Independent of this is our distinction between basic verbs (either uncliticized verbs or verbs realizing lexemes whose clitics never alternate with nonclitics) and reduced verbs (those which realize potentially nonaffixal arguments as clitics). Reflexive verbs, as we have seen, have a complex relation to this last distinction.
34
Abeille et al.
Both tense auxiliary and causative constructions are analyzed as complex predicates whose argument structures contain elements that are selected by the complex predicate's lexical argument (a participle or infinitive). Tense auxiliaries and the past participles with which they combine share elements of their argument structure. Composition FAIRE (and other causative verbs), by contrast, incorporate into their argument structure members of their infinitive's COMPS list. (These are always arguments that have a potential for nonaffixal realization.) Both tense auxiliaries and causative verbs constrain their lexical complement, requiring that it be a basic verb, but they differ with respect to the possibility of downstairs clitic realization. The distinction in composition type that we have posited (c-composition vs. a-composition) plays a fundamental role in our account of the fact that clitics always "climb" onto the tense auxiliary but intrinsic clitic verbs (and these alone) require downstairs realization in the composition causative construction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Gosse Bouma, Mike Calcagno, Ann Copestake, Francis Corblin, Tony Davis, Georgia Green, Erhard Hinrichs, Andreas Kathol, Bob Levine, Chris Manning, Jean-Marie Marandin, Philip Miller, Jean-Claude Milner, Tsuneko Nakazawa, Carl Pollard, Pierrette Thibault, Eun Jung Yoo, and our reviewers. This paper is part of a larger project on French syntax (see Abeille et al., in preparation) that has been supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (INT-94-16855) and CNRS.
NOTES *We analyse Romance clitics as pronominal affixes rather than syntactically independent words (see section 2.1). In this context then, the term "clitic" is a misnomer; nonetheless, we continue to use it for reasons of familiarity. 2 Other cases of clitic climbing in French are passive and copular constructions and genitive en. See Abeille and Godard (1994, 1996a) and Sag and Godard (1994) for compatible analyses in HPSG. 3 The possibility of attaching pronominal clitics to an infinitive is not a general trait of Romance causative constructions; Italian seems to disallow all downstairs clitics on the infinitival complement (e.g., Monachesi, 1995), while Spanish and Catalan allow more such attachments than French does, though there is some variation among speakers. (See Moore, 1990; Alsina, 1996.)
Composition in French CPs 4
35
Note that both the ARG-ST and the COMPS features belong to the syntactic description of items. LEXEMES specify how elements of the ARG-ST are linked to semantic roles. 5 The c-composition analysis plays a role in certain earlier HPSG analyses of German nonfmite auxiliary, raising, and certain control constructions. See Kiss (1994), Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994), and the references cited there. 6 Actually, in the analysis we present below, the distinction in question is made as two types of verb HEAD values. Nothing essential hinges on this. 7 See Bouma (1997) and Bouma et al. (1997). 8 We draw freely here from the approach to lexical organization developed in Koenig (1994). Koenig uses "and-or" nets to constrain the interaction of types and type constraints. 9 The sign e means list concatenation (or append) and O designates the shuffle operation. In the more complete analysis, as presented by Miller and Sag (1997) and Abeille et al. (in preparation), there is the further possibility of an ARG-ST element of type gap appearing on the ARG-ST list, but not on the COMPS list. We will ignore issues of extraction here. 10 Further types may be required in order to allow for other words whose SUBJ value is empty (e.g., case-marking prepositions). 11"List(type)" designates a list of objects, all of which are of type type; "nelist" stands for "nonempty list." 12 The symbol "/" in (16) indicates a default type assignment for the value of the feature HEAD. For a conception of defaults particularly compatible with the present approach, see Lascarides et al. (1996), from whom we take the "/" notation. 13 See Abeille and Godard (1996b) for discussion. 14 To account for what seems to be "optional clitic climbing," Monachesi (1995), following a suggestion of Rizzi (1978), also proposes two different structures for restructuring verbs in Italian: a VP complement structure (with the clitics downstairs), and a flat structure (with the clitics upstairs). Under her proposal, the causative FAIRE only takes the flat composition structure. Moore (1990) posits two structures for a set of verbs in Spanish which includes causative and perception verbs, but they do not seem to completely correlate with clitic position. We ignore here the faire-par construction, which is also an instance of composition FAIRE. 16 There is also positive evidence that the causee is a complement of FAIRE, based on "quantitative en" distribution (Milner, 1978) and on heavy-NP shift (Miller, 1991). 17 In the Lexical-Functional Grammar framework, complements can be shared (in the functional structure) without being sisters of the causative verb (in the constituent structure). Zaenen and Dalrymple (1996), building on earlier work of Alsina (1996), represent causative constructions in French as hierarchical from the constituency point of view (FAIRE takes a VP complement) but "flat" from the functional point of view (the functional structure of FAIRE and the infinitival are fused).
36
Abeille et al. 18
We assume that composition FAIRE takes three semantic arguments when it combines with a transitive infinitive: the causer (ACTOR), the causee (UNDERGOER) and the event denoted by the infinitival v. By contrast, as argued in Abeille et al. (to appear), FAIRE plus intransitive infinitive combinations (including FAIRE-PAR) are semantically dyadic. For related justification of the raising analysis of FAIRE plus intransitive infinitive combinations, see also Koenig (1994). 19 It is of course tempting to try to collapse these two composition causative types into one, relying on the fact that French in general allows only one (role-assigned) accusative per argument structure to explain the distribution of accusative and dative causees. Such an analysis (first suggested, to our knowledge, by Liz Bratt—see Bratt, 1990) would postulate that composition FAIRE is transitive, relying on the fact that transitives take one and only one NP object to explain the distribution of causees. Our best attempts at executing this to date, however, have been thwarted by the fact that some transitives need not realize their object on the COMPS list (e.g., VOIR), other transitive verbs require an s or VP complement instead of an NP (e.g., PROMETTRE), and certain intrinsic clitic verbs (e.g., EN VOULOIR A) require an argument (the en) which, while arguably accusative, cannot be composed into the ARG-ST of FAIRE (as they are not realizable as affixes on FAIRE), and hence cannot contribute an accusative to the determination of FAIRE'S transitivity. Yet, in all these cases, despite the absence of an accusative NP on the ARG-ST of the lower verb, the causee is realized as dative. 20 Here we include functional annotations on the various branches (H for the head, C for complements). 21 For some speakers, quantitative en provides a third set of verbs that allow "downstairs" cliticization (Rouveret and Vergnaud, 1980): (i) Paul fera en acheter trois a Marie. Paul make-fut of-them to-buy three to Marie Taul will make Marie buy three of them.' Notice that the same en can also appear upstairs for the same speakers: (ii) Marie en fera acheter trois a Paul. Marie of-them make-fut to-buy three to Paul 'Marie will make Paul buy three of them.' Since quantitative en is introduced by a lexeme-to-lexeme lexical rule that constrains the accusative complement to be an indefinite pronominal complement and adds a p-aff en in the ARG-ST of the verb (see Abeille et al., in preparation), the HEAD value of the output can optionally be typed as bas-vb in our account of this dialect, thus allowing either the pl-wd acheter or the cl-wd en-acheter as the complement of composition FAIRE. 22 Certain expressions (such as en voir des vertes et des pas mures 'to go through hard times' (literally: 'to see green ones and unripe ones')) also allow their clitics to attach to FAIRE. In our analysis, this effect is achieved by lexemically restricting the relevant argument to be en-aff, but not requiring the verb to be of type cl-wd. This correctly allows for an infinitival pl-wd realization with the en-aff on the COMPS list. This en-aff can then be realized on the composition causative via c-composition.
Composition in French CPs
37
23 Some add benefactive or ethical datives which are not syntactically different from intrinsic reflexives, or inchoative reflexives (Ruwet, 1972; Koenig, 1994), which are not syntactically different from medio-passives. 24 A11 speakers accept reflexive verbs of classes (b) and (c) as complement of causative verbs, while only some of them accept class (a). See below for more on interspeaker variation. 25 This is true for all (active) verbs, except for a few intransitive verbs, which select etre, and agree with the subject. 26 Intriguing data in inversion and control structures indicate that this may be an oversimplification: the v does not agree in person with a subject or a controller that follows it, although it agrees in number (Marandin, 1997); the reflexive morpheme does not agree in person either:
(i) A la Fac se sont alors rencontres [Marie et toi], at the University se are 3pl then met [Marie and you]2jg qui etiez tons deux etudiants en medecine. who were2pl both students in medicine 'Marie and you, who were both medical students, met at the University. These facts can be interpreted as showing that person agreement should be distinguished from number (and gender) agreement; se may thus be thought of as agreeing with the verb's agreement features, rather than with the subject. We leave this problem for future research. 27 As argued in Abeille et al. (in preparation), it is impossible to account for the difference in auxiliary selection between the basic verb and the reflexive verb by appeal to any independent syntactic or semantic property in French, contrary to what has been proposed in a general way for Italian (Perlmutter, 1983; Burzio, 1986) or Dutch (Zaenen, 1993). Coindexation between the subject and a complement is certainly insufficient to induce etre, since the non-reflexive verb with a pronoun co-indexed with the subject has auxiliary avoir: (i) Paul n'a lave que lui-meme. 'Paul washed only himself.' The explanation based on the presence of a "trace" in object position (Burzio, 1986) is also problematic. It is unsupported for intrinsic reflexives (like S'EVANOUIR), as well as for medio-passives, since the reflexive clitic does not alternate with any overt constituent. In the unaccusative analysis of medio-passives (Grimshaw, 1990), there is a "trace" in object position. However, there are decisive arguments against this analysis. See Alsina (1996) for discussion. 98 This conditional formulation is easily replaced by one where the relevant constraints all "live on" types. That formulation appeals to two subtypes of past-part. 29 True reflexive verbs may have a reflexive or reciprocal interpretation (if the subject denotes an aggregate entity); see Melis (1987). We keep the name "reflexive" in spite of this slight inaccuracy. 30 They are called "inherent reflexives," "intrinsic reflexives," or "essential reflexives" in reference grammars; we use the term "intrinsic" for the whole class
38
Abeille et al.
of clitics (and verbs bearing them) which occur downstairs in causative constructions. 31 Cliticization by itself does not turn a transitive verb into an intransitive; there is no impersonal construction corresponding to un enfant le lavait dans la fontaine ('a child was washing it in the fountain'): (i) *Il le lavait un enfant dans la fontaine. it it wash-imperf-3sg a child in the fountain (putatively) 'There was a child washing it in the fountain.' 32
Note that in our analysis, ARG-ST cannot be used to predict transitivity, as there are intransitive verbs with an accusative NP on their ARG-ST list. See note 19. 33 There are speakers who accept (50b), but still do not allow true accusative reflexives in the composition causative (they do not accept (51c)). These speakers have the lexical rule creating intransitive acc-refl-lxms like (52), but not the constraint in (53). Accordingly, true accusative reflexives are intransitive (hence a possible input for the Impersonal Subject LR whose outputs appear in the impersonal construction), but they are not bas-vb (and hence are unacceptable as complements of composition FAIRE). 34 That only transitive verbs alternate with medio-passives is challenged by Descles et al. (1986) on the basis of such examples as le pain moisit/le pain se moisit ('bread goes moldy'), les fruits pourrissent/les fruits se pourriront vite ('fruit will get rotten quickly'), Jean guerira tres vite/Jean se guerira tres vite ('Jean will be cured very fast'). However, the corresponding transitive verbs exist (moisir 'make moldy', pourrir, 'make rotten'; guerir, 'cure'); they enter into two alternations: one with the medio-passive verb, and one with intransitive verbs in the examples above, often called "ergatives" (similar to the alternation of the two verbs break in English). 35 In spite of the fact that their complement list contains an accusative NP. See note 37. 36 The a-aff is analyzed as an accusative complement because of agreement facts. See the discussion at the beginning of section 5. 37 That toi is second person is shown by examples such as: Il ne se vend bien que vous qui avez toujours toutes les chances. it-3sg ne se sell-pres-3sg well only you-2pl who have-2pl always all the luck 'The only one (whose books are) selling well is you who always have all the luck.' 38 Koenig (1994:62ff), in discussing an earlier version of this analysis (Godard and Sag, 1995), argues that binding principles should play no role in the analysis of medio-passives. He suggests that binding principles, as part of a module of syntactic principles, should not be accessible to constructs that are part of the lexical module, e.g., principles of lexical well-formedness. We share Koenig's concern for processing autonomy, but binding principles must be constraints on words in HPSG, as words (more precisely their categories) are the only constructs that have ARG-ST lists. Thus it seems reasonable to interpret binding principles (as long as they constrain only coarguments) as lexically specified disjunctive constraints on ARG-ST lists that function monotonically in syntactic processing. Some such scheme is necessary in any case, as third person p-aff clitics (le, la, les, lui,
Composition in French CPs
39
etc.) must interact with Principle B of the binding theory in just the same way that we propose se interacts with Principle A. Koenig's other objection is based on his view that the medio-passive clitics are really subject agreement markers rather than reflexive anaphors. While he may be right that they mark agreement, inversion facts show that it is not straightforwardly subject agreement marking (see note 27). In any case, it would be easy to modify our Medio-Passive LR so that it induced the appropriate agreement leaving all other aspects of our analysis unchanged. 39 See Kayne (1975), Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980:153-154), Aissen and Perlmutter (1983), and Tasmowski (1985:330).
REFERENCES Abeille, A., and D. Godard (1994). The complementation of tense auxiliaries in French. In Proceedings of WCCFL 13, 157-172. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Abeille, A., and D. Godard (1996a). La complementation des auxiliaires franc,ais. Langages 122, 32-61. Abeille, A., and D. Godard (1996b). French Word Order and Lexicality. Paper given at HPSG 96 Conference, Marseille. To appear in R. Borsley (ed.), Syntactic Categories. Academic Press, New York. Abeille, A., D. Godard, P. Miller, and I. A. Sag (1997). Bounded Dependencies in French. In S. Balari and L. Dini (eds.), HPSG in Romance. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Abeille, A., D. Godard, P. Miller, and Ivan A. Sag (to appear). The Causative Structures of French. Unpublished manuscript, Paris and Stanford. Abeille, A., D. Godard, and I. A. Sag (in preparation). The Major Syntactic Structures of French. Unpublished manuscript. Aissen, J., and D. Perlmutter (1983). Clause reduction in Spanish. In D. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1, 360-403. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Alsina, A. (1996). The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Lecture Notes Series. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Auger, J. (1994). Pronominal Clitics in Quebec Colloquial French, A Morphological Approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. (Distributed as IRCS Report 94-29.) Bouma, G. (1997). Monotonic Lexical Rules. Unpublished manuscript, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Bouma, G., R. Malouf, and I. A. Sag (1997). Satisfying Constraints on Extraction and Adjunction. Unpublished manuscript, Groningen and Stanford. Bratt, E. O. (1990). The French Causative Construction in HPSG. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford. Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
40
Abeille et al.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. Reidel, Dordrecht. Dalrymple, M. (1993). Syntactic Constraints on Anaphora. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Davis, A. (1996). Lexical Semantics and Linking in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Descles, J.-P., Z. Guentcheva, and S. Shaumyan (1986). Theoretical analysis of reflexivization in the framework of applicative grammar. Linguisticae Investigationes X, 1-65. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (to appear). Impersonal si constructions and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry. Emonds, J. (1978). The verbal complex V'-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151-175. Godard, D., and I. A. Sag (1995). Reflexivization and Transitivity in French. Paper presented at annual meeting of the LSA, New Orleans. Grevisse, M. (1969). Le Bon Usage. Duculot, Liege. Grimshaw, J. (1982). On the lexical representation of romance reflexive clitics. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 87-148. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994). Linearizing Aux's in German verbal complexes. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German Grammar in HPSG, 11-37. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Hyman, L. M., and K. E. Zimmer (1976). Embedded topic in French. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 191-211. Academic Press, New York. Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kiss, T. (1994). Obligatory coherence: The structure of German modal verb constructions. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German Grammar in HPSG, 71-107. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Koenig, J.-P. (1994). Lexical Underspecification and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Koenig, J.-P., and D. Jurafsky (1994). Underspecification and on-line type construction in the lexicon. In Proceedings WCCFL 13, 270-285. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Lascarides, A., E. Briscoe, N. Asher, and A. Copestake (1996). Order independent and persistent typed default unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(1), 1-89. Legendre, G. (1987). Topics in French Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Manning, C. (1994). Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Marandin, J.-M. (1997). Dans le Titre se Trouve le Sujet; VInversion Locative en Franqais. Unpublished manuscript, Universite Paris 7. Melis, L. (1987). La Vote Pronominale. Duculot, Liege. Miller, P. (1991). Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. (Published in 1992, Garland, New York.) Miller, P., and I. A. Sag (1995). Une analyse lexicaliste des affixes pronominaux en frangais. Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 1, 135-171.
Composition in French CPs
41
Miller, P., and I. A. Sag (1997) French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 573-639. Milner, J.-C. (1978). De la Syntaxe a VInterpretation. Le Seuil, Paris. Milner, J.-C. (1982). Ordres et Raisons de Langue. Le Seuil, Paris. Monachesi, P. (1995). A Grammar of Italian Clitics. Doctoral dissertation, KUB, Tilburg. Moore, J. (1990). Reduced Constructions in Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Morin, J.-Y. (1978). Une theorie interpretative des causatives en franqais. Linguisticae Investigationes 11(2), 363-417. Perlmutter, D. (1983). Personal vs impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 141-199. Pollard, C., and I. A. Sag (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. Lecture Notes Series. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C., and I. A. Sag (1992). Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261-303. Pollard, C., and I. A. Sag (1994). Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, and CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Rizzi, L. (1978). A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In S. J. Keyser (ed), Transformational Studies in European Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Rouveret, A., and J.-R. Vergnaud (1980). Specifying reference to the subject. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1), 97-202. Ruwet, N. (1972). Les constructions pronominales neutres et moyennes. In Theorie Syntaxique et Syntaxe du Franqais, 87-125. Le Seuil, Paris. Sag, I. A., and D. Godard (1994). Extraction of de-phrases from the French NP. In Proceedings of NELS 24, 519-541. University of Massachusetts, GLSA, Amherst, MA. Scalise, S. (1984). Generative Morphology. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Tasmowski, L. (1985). Faire infinitif. In L. Melis, L. Tasmowski, P. Verluyten, and D. Willems (eds.), Les Constructions de la Phrase Franchise. Invitation a la Reflexion sur le Passif, le Pronominal, l'Impersonnel, et le Causatif. Communication and Cognition, Gent. Wechsler, S. (1995). The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Zaenen, A. (1993). Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 129-161. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Zaenen, A., and M. Dalrymple (1996). Les verbes causatifs 'polymorphiques': les predicats complexes en fran^ais. Langages 122, 79-95. (Nouveaux Raisonnements Syntaxiques, A. Abeille and D. Godard (eds.).) Zubizarreta, M. L. (1985). The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: The case of romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 247-289.
This page intentionally left blank
WORD ORDER CONSTRAINTS ON VERB CLUSTERS IN GERMAN AND DUTCH GOSSE BOUMA GERTJAN VAN NOORD Vakgroep Alfa-informatica & BCN Rijksuniuersiteit Groningen Groningen The Netherlands
I. INTRODUCTION
There is a broad concensus among researchers working within the paradigm of HPSG that complement inheritance of the kind proposed in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994) is an essential operation in the analysis of the verb cluster in German and Dutch. Both languages have a class of verbs (including auxiliaries and modals) that subcategorize for a (possibly) unsaturated verbal complement, and for all the complements on the coMPS-list of this verbal complement. Most analyses of German have assumed that these complement inheritance verbs combine with their verbal complements to form a phrase consisting of (lexical) verbs only. This phrase is usually referred to as the verbal complex. In this paper, we argue that the word order of German as well as Dutch verb clusters can be accounted for without introducing a verbal complex.1 Our analysis rests on the assumption that a single HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema exists, which licenses phrases consisting of a lexical head and an arbitrary number of its complements. This schema allows a complement inheritance verb to combine with its verbal complement, as well as the complements of this complement, in one step. A consequence of this Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax
43
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
44
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
analysis is that there is no room within the verb phrase for partial VPS or a verbal complex. The advantage of such an account is that there is no need to distinguish between a rule schema for verbal complexes and for (partial) VPS. Furthermore, a "flat VP" implies that phrase structure does not impose any constraints on word order. Therefore, the full range of word order possibilities found in German and Dutch verb clusters is captured by a single schema. Of course, the main challenge for this "flat VP" analysis is to demonstrate that it can do so without leading to vast overgeneration. This is the main topic of the current paper. In the next section, we introduce the German data and discuss the analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994) as well as a number of related approaches. Next, we present our analysis of German. It uses a general HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema in conjunction with linear precedence statements. We demonstrate that the proposed set of LP-statements accounts for all ordering possibilities encountered in the German verb cluster. Furthermore, we argue that our analysis leads to an improved account of partial VP fronting (Nerbonne, 1994). The account of word order adopted here is considerably more sophisticated than the proposal in van Noord and Bouma (1996), in which an account of the Dutch verb cluster was presented which relied primarily on ordering in terms of obliqueness. In section 4, we demonstrate that the improvements that were necessary in order to account for German also lead to a smoother account of some of the more problematic Dutch data.
2. THE CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE OF GERMAN VPS German subordinate clauses containing a cluster of a main verb and modal and/or auxiliary verbs give rise to a nesting (or embedding) dependency word order: (1) dafi er das Examen bestehen konnen wird. that he the exam pass be-able-to will 'that he will be able to pass the exam' Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994) argue that the phenomenon known as Oberfeldumstellung or auxiliary flip (2) provides evidence for the fact that the complement of auxiliaries and modals (i.e., wird and konnen in (2)) is not a full VP, but a constituent consisting of verbal material only: (2)
dafi er das Examen wird bestehen konnen.
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
45
If konnen were to select the VP das Examen bestehen as complement, giving rise to a constituent which is itself the complement of wird, the word order in (2) would be completely unexpected. If konnen and wird are "complement inheritors," however, an analysis suggests itself in which bestehen konnen, but not das Examen bestehen konnen, is a constituent. The proposed lexical entries for konnen and wird are given in (3):2
The NPCOMPS feature plays a role in the following two HEAD-COMPLEMENT schemata:
The first rule in (4) licenses the derivation of a verbal complex, whereas the second rule licenses the derivation of (partial) verb phrases. Note that, in VPS with standard word order, these two schemata give rise to a binary, left-branching tree:3
46
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
Auxiliary flip is accounted for by means of a binary head feature FLIP. The following linear precedence statement expresses that verbal complements marked [FLIP + ] must follow the head:
Since main verbs never induce flipped word order, they are considered to be marked [FLIP — ]. Infinitival modals such as konnen are unspecified for the head feature FLIP. Thus, given the constituent structure in (5) and the LP statement in (6), it is predicted that both the word order in (1) and in (2) are allowed. A complication arises from the fact that konnen can also function as Ersatzinfinitiu (substitute infinitive).4 In those cases, flipped word order is obligatory. This fact is accounted for by assigning the Ersatzinfinitiu konnen the value [FLIP + ]:
This accounts for the contrast in (8): (8) a. daft er das Examen hat bestehen konnen. that he the exam has pass be-able-to 'that he has been able to pass the .exam' b. *dafi er das Examen bestehen konnen hat. The auxiliary haben, finally, functions as a "trigger" for flipped word order only in case it appears in "flipped" position itself. This is illustrated in (9): (9) a. dafi er die Lieder wird haben singen konnen. that he the songs will have sing be-able-to 'that he will have been able to sing the songs' b. * dafi er die Lieder haben singen konnen wird. c. dafi er die Lieder gesungen haben wird.
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
47
In (9a), haben must precede singen konnen and therefore is a trigger for flipped word order itself. In (9c), haben does not appear in flipped position and consequently cannot trigger flipped word order for wird. This can be accounted for by assuming that haben inherits the FLiP-value of its verbal complement:
An essential aspect of the Hinrichs and Nakazawa account of word order within the verb cluster is the distinction between verbal complexes and other partial verb phrases expressed by the feature NPCOMPS. First, in sentences with "normal" word order, selection for a [NPCOMPS — ] complement prevents ambiguity. That is, in those cases the [NPCOMPS -] specification on the complement ensures that the inheritance verb combines with a verb or verbal complex, rather than a full VP. Second, in sentences with "flipped" word order, the NPCOMPS feature ensures that the auxiliary "flips" only over the verbal complex, and not over a full or partial VP. This is illustrated in (11): (11) a. wenn er dem Professor die Studenten hdtte vorstellen durfen. if he the professor the students had introduce be allowed 'if he had been allowed to introduce the students to the professor' b. *wenn er die Studenten hdtte dem Professor vorstellen durfen. c. *wenn er dem Professor hdtte die Studenten vorstellen durfen. d. *wenn er hdtte dem Professor die Studenten vorstellen durfen. While the examples in (llb-d) are judged grammatical by some speakers, other speakers reject such examples. The fact that auxiliaries and modal verbs are complement inheritance verbs has been widely accepted. Questions concerning the constituency of phrases headed by such, however, have not been answered uniformly. In Kiss (1994), for instance, it is argued that the verbal complex is right-
48
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
branching instead of left-branching:
This analysis has the advantage that it is no longer necessary to have two HEAD-COMPLEMENT schemata, one for creating verbal complexes and a second rule for creating (partial) VPS. The feature NPCOMPS can dispensed with as well. Instead, complement inheritance verbs select a verbal complement which is marked +LEX. A problem for this kind of analysis is obviously that there is no easy way to account for auxiliary flip. Proposals for a nonbinary branching analysis have been put forward as well. In Nerbonne (1994), for instance, it is argued that instances of partial VP fronting (13) are best accounted for by making minimal assumptions about the internal structure of VPS: (13) a. Das Buck lesen wird er schon konnen. the book read will he already can 'He'll surely be able to read the book.' b. Lesen konnen wird er das Buch schon. For transformational accounts, which assume a correspondence between a fronted element and a trace in the remaining clause, such examples are problematic. Only an analysis that assigns multiple bracketings to das Buch lesen konnen can account for the two examples in (13). However, such an analysis must accept spurious ambiguity in examples without fronting. Nerbonne provides an alternative, nontransformational and traceless, account, in which a complement extraction lexical rule shifts an element from COMPS to SLASH. A special feature of this rule is that the requirement that a complement must be [NPCOMPS -] or +LEX is not carried over to SLASH. This essentially allows a complement inheritance verb, which normally selects for a verbal complex or lexical verb, to have an element on SLASH matching an arbitrary partial VP. Nerbonne emphasizes that, given his analysis, fronting of partial VPS is no longer an argument for assigning constituent status to such phrases in
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
49
nonfronted positions as well. Consequently, there seems to be no reason why a verbal head could not combine with all its complements in one step. Although Nerbonne does not address this issue in detail, he suggests that an account of auxiliary flip still necessitates the introduction of a verbal complex. That is, an auxiliary could have a verbal complex as one of its arguments:
However, even the existence of verbal complexes can be questioned. In Baker (1994), for instance, the example above is assigned the following structure:
Flat structures of this kind can be obtained if complement inheritance verbs select a lexical complement and, furthermore, the HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema imposes the constraint that the head must be lexical (i.e., of type word). It should be noted, however, that Baker tries to account for auxiliary flip by assuming that in those cases the auxiliary takes a partial VP as argument. As is admitted by Baker herself, such an account overgenerates, as it not only accepts ordinary cases of auxiliary flip, but also all of the examples in (11) and even such sequences as (16), which are completely ungrammatical: (16)
*dqfi er bestehen wird das Examen konnen. that he pass will the exam be-able-to 'that he will be able to pass the exam'
The proposal of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994) deals successfully with auxiliary flip in the German verb cluster. Alternatives which also explicitly address this issue, such as Baker (1994), are not without problems. This does not imply, however, that alternatives are not worth considering. For one thing, while the analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa leads to a smooth account of auxiliary flip, it cannot easily account for some other word order patterns.
50
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
In Dutch subordinate clauses, for instance, the presence of auxiliaries and modals also leads to a cluster of verbs in clause-final position. The standard order in this case, however, is one where the governing verb precedes the verb it governs: (17) dat Jan het boek moet hebben gelezen. that John the book must have read 'that John must have read the book' As in German, a certain amount of word order variation is permitted. The participle in (17), for instance, may also be the first element in the cluster: (18)
dat Jan het boek gelezen moet hebben.
An analysis which assigns constituent status to gelezen hebben cannot easily account for this possibility. Of course, it may be that constituency within the verb cluster in Dutch is simply different than in German. However, there are also German examples which appear to be problematic. Meurers (1994) has drawn attention to the following examples, which he refers to as cases of Zwischenstellung: (19) zu dem Zeitpunkt an dem ich mich entscheiden hdtte mussen at the point at which I me decide had must 'at the point at which I should have made a decision' The analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994) considers entscheiden mussen as a constituent. The fact that hdtte may, for a considerable number of speakers, "flip" over the modal verb only in this case, is clearly problematic for their analysis. Below, we develop an alternative analysis for the German verb cluster. It not only handles auxiliary flip, but also Zwischenstellung. An advantage of our "flat" analysis is that it uses a single HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema to derive both full and partial VPS, without spurious ambiguity. In previous work (van Noord and Bouma, 1996), we argued that this means that a single rule can account for the derivation of full VPS as well as the kind of partial VPS encountered in examples of partial VP fronting and partial extraposition (third construction) in Dutch. Thus, the alternative developed below accounts for a wider range of data, and does so by using fewer rules, than previous proposals. Moreover, there is no need for a feature such as NPCOMPS. This is advantageous because the percolation of this feature in previous analyses is rather peculiar and not subject to one of the ordinary feature percolation constraints (such as the head feature principle).
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
51
3. WORD ORDER WITHIN THE GERMAN VERB CLUSTER
In this section, we present our analysis of German verb clusters. We present a HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema which allows both full and partial verb phrases to be derived. Furthermore, we present our approach to word order, which relies on LINEAR PRECEDENCE statements.5 Linear precedence within phrases is determined by three principles: Directionality. Directionality determines the position of a complement daughter relative to the head daughter. Topology. Topological constraints determine in which "topological field" a daughter appears. Instead of adopting the full range of topological fields usually assumed for German syntax, we will only distinguish between "inner zone" and "outer zone" positions, where the "inner zone" contains the verb cluster, and the "outer zone" contains all other elements of the VP. Government. The direction of government determines the position of a complement relative to its governor, where government is defined in terms of argument structure. The distinction between the verb cluster and other parts of the VP is expressed by means of the distinction between inner and outer zone, and the order of elements within the verb cluster is determined by the direction of government. 3.1. The Head-Complement Schema
We assume the following, general, HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema:
Schema (20) states that a phrase may consist of a lexical head daughter and one or more complement daughters. The requirement that the head daughter must be of type word, while the mother is a phrase rules out recursive rule application, i.e., no phrase derived by means of the HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema can be the head of a larger phrase also derived by means of the HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema. The requirement that there must always be at least one complement means that there can be no nonbranching derivations. Both constraints are required to rule out spurious derivations.
52
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
The HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema is subject to the VALENCE Principle, which is similar to the Subcategorization Principle of Pollard and Sag (1994:34):6 (21) Valence Principle: The coMPS-list of the head daughter is the append (0) of the coMPS-list of the mother and the list of SYNSEM-values of the complement daughters. Note that valence does not distinguish between a case where all complements are selected, and cases where one or more complements are not selected. The latter allows partial phrases to be derived.7 This is essential for our account of partial VP fronting and partial extraposition (or third construction) verbs. The order of complements relative to the head daughter is determined by the feature DIR. A head daughter may specify its complements as either [DIR ->], in which case the complement must precede the head, or as [DIR <-], in which case it follows the head. In German subordinate clauses, NP complements must precede the head daughter, which means that a ditransitive verb such as geben ('to give') can be specified as
The following two LP statements implement directionality:
Note that directionality only orders complements relative to the head daughter; the order of complements with respect to each other is left open. In previous work on Dutch (van Noord and Bouma, 1996), we have assumed that obliqueness provides an ordering of complements: if Cl is more oblique than C2 (i.e., the SYNSEM-value of C1 follows the SYNSEMvalue of C2 on COMPS), then C1 appears closer to the head daughter than C2. Such a constraint might be too restrictive for German, however.8 The order of lexical, verbal, complements is discussed below.
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
53
Note, finally, that the head daughter of a HEAD-COMPLEMENT phrase is marked [ZONE inner], also referred to as I-ZONE; whereas NP-complements are marked [ZONE outer] (O-ZONE). The relevance of this distinction is explained below. 3.2. Complement Inheritance and the I-Zone Following the analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989), we assume that modals and auxiliaries are complement inheritance verbs, which select for a list of complements consisting of a verb and the complements selected by that verb:
The verbs helfen ('to help') and lassen ('to let') are analyzed as complement inheritance verbs as well, but these verbs also select for an additional NP object:
Our account of the verb cluster rests on the assumption that complement inheritance verbs select for an I-ZONE verbal complement. The ZONE
54
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
feature defines whether an element occupies the "inner" or "outer" zone topological field. The inner zone contains the head daughter, along with any complements which are required to appear "close" to this head. Furthermore, we assume that the I-ZONE may only contain daughters of type word. The outer zone is occupied by the other complements. Thus, we make the following assumptions:
The effect of the two LP constraints above is that no OZONE daughter can appear in between two I-ZONE daughters. Since head daughters are required to be in the I-ZONE by the HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema, this has the effect of creating a topological field for the head daughter and I-ZONE complements. In verb phrases, the I-ZONE will contain the verb cluster. The interaction of the zone and directionality constraints can be represented schematically as in (27).
The I-ZONE principle ensures that complement inheritance is not just a possibility, but a necessity. Since I-ZONE elements must be words, complement inheritance verbs, which select for an I-ZONE complement, must in fact combine with a lexical verbal complement. Thus, all complements of this lexical verbal complement must be inherited by the higher, complement inheritance, verb. The effect of the I-ZONE principle is therefore that VPS headed by a complement inheritance verb must be "flat." For instance, the VPS in the two examples below are given in (29) and (30). In these examples, an arrow points toward a head daughter. (28) a. daft er das Examen bestehen konnen wird. that he the exam pass be-able-to will 'that he will be able to pass the exam' b. daft du uns die Schlacht hast gewinnen helfen. that you us the battle have win help 'that you did help us win the battle'
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
55
The "flat" constituent structures shown here are the only ones possible according to the grammar. Furthermore, NP-complements must precede the I-ZONE and all verbs must appear in the I-ZONE. The relative order of the verbs in the cluster is still unconstrained, however. 3.3. Government The analysis of word order in German and Dutch verb clusters in Kathol (1997) combines the Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994) analysis of the verb cluster with a nonconcatenative approach to word order. Word order is determined by topological fields as well as direction of government. Our account of word order within the verb cluster closely follows Kathol's proposals. The major distinction between the two approaches is that we implement these proposals in a concatenative setting, whereas Kathol presupposes a non-concatenative framework. An example of the type of word order domains used by Kathol is given in (31):
Such order domains can be derived using binary branching syntax rules if the daughters in a rule are allowed to be combined by means of sequence
56
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
union (Reape, 1994), instead of concatenation. This enables Kathol to adopt a constituent structure very similar to that proposed by Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994), while word order constraints apply to the "flat" domain shown in (31). The labels cf, mf, and vc refer to the topological fields complementizer field, Mittelfeld, and verb cluster. LP-constraints ensure that cf elements must precede mf elements, and that mf elements must precede vc elements. The vc topological field corresponds exactly to our I-ZONE field. Note also that in both cases, all verbal elements are sisters, and thus constituency does not impose any constraints on word order. We demonstrate below that Kathol's proposals for determining order within the verb cluster therefore carry over to our analysis. First we discuss how the notion of government can be incorporated in HPSG, and how linear precedence statements referring to government can be defined. We then go on to present the various constraints that must be imposed on the direction of government for German verbs. The distinction between the relative order of a head daughter and its complement (which is constrained by the value of DIR) and the relative order of a governor and governee is relevant especially for complement inheritance verbs. The coMPS-list of a complement inheritance verb in general contains a number of complements for which the verb subcategorizes, as well as complements inherited from one of these complements. Only the first are assumed to be governed by the complement inheritance verb (i.e., inherited complements are not governed by the verb which inherits them). The distinction between complements that are subcategorized-for and inherited complements is reflected on the level of argument structure. Argument structure is a notion which has been introduced recently in HPSG as the level on which the binding constraints are defined. Canonically, it is the append of the valency features SUBJ, SPR, and COMPS. Exceptional cases can arise, for instance, in "pro-drop" or ergative languages (where ARG-S may contain elements not present on any of the valence lists, or where the mapping between valence and ARG-S is not just append) (see Manning and Sag, 1995, for discussion) or as the result of applying lexical rules such as the COMPLEMENT EXTRACTION rule (see Sag, 1995). In van Noord and Bouma (1996), we argued that binding in Dutch indicates that the ARG-S of complement inheritance verbs contains the complements the verb subcategorizes for, but not the inherited complements. Manning et al. (1996) reach a similar conclusion for Japanese causatives (which they analyze as bound morphemes which inherit the complements of the host verb). We will assume, therefore, that the same is true for German: complement inheritance has an effect on valency, but
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
57
not argument structure. The following examples exemplify this distinction:
We assume that a verb V governs a complement C iff C is an element of the argument structure of V? The feature GVOR replaces the feature FLIP of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994), and accounts for the relative order of a governor and governee. This feature takes four values, -> ( ^>) (the governee must (immediately) precede its governor), and <- (<-^) (the governee must (immediately) follow its governor). Since a complement is governed by the sign on whose argument structure it appears, this gives rise to the following LP statements (where «: expresses immediate precedence):
Kathol (1998) assumes that German main (i.e., nonauxiliary and nonmodal) verbs come with the specification [GVOR -> ]. That is, a governed main verb must always precede its governor. This accounts for the fact that auxiliaries or modal verbs cannot precede the main verbs they govern (i.e.,
58
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
main verbs cannot "trigger" auxiliary flip). An example is given in (34):
For complement inheritance verbs, two GVOR specifications are relevant: that of the verb itself, and that on its verbal complement. Modal verbs in general may act as trigger of auxiliary flip, and therefore are themselves unspecified for GVOR. There is a distinction between the modals of the werden type and of the konnen type. The first, in its finite form, may precede its verbal complement (if it is not a main verb) whereas the second must always follow its complement. This distinction implies that finite forms of werden do not impose a constraint on the GVOR value of their verbal complement, whereas konnen specifies its verbal complement as [GVOR -»]:10
Given these lexical entries, we can derive exactly the three word orders given below (an arrow with subscript g illustrates the value of the GVOR feature; an arrow with subscript d illustrates the DIR feature):
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
59
The examples above illustrate that our account predicts the possibility of auxiliary flip and Zwischenstellung, if an auxiliary such as werden governs a modal verb. If the auxiliary governs a main verb, flipped word order is ruled out. For those speakers that do not allow the Zwischenstellung order (38), we assume, following Kathol, that the GVOR specification on main verbs is [GVOR ^> ] instead of [GVOR -> ]. The restriction that the governor of a main verb must be right-adjacent rules out the derivation in (38), but not the derivations in (36) and (37). The final issue to be discussed concerns Ersatzinfinitiv and the auxiliary haben. If haben governs a modal verb, this verb will appear in its infinitival form, instead of its participle form. Following Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994), we will assume that the infinitive form of a modal may be marked [VFORM psp]. Furthermore, since haben must obligatorily precede the modal verb in this case (40), it is specified as [GVOR <- ]:
(40) a. daft er das Examen hat bestehen konnen. that he the exam has pass be-able-to 'that he has been able to pass the exam' b. *dafi er das Examen bestehen konnen hat.
60
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
The status of the auxiliary haben itself as a trigger for "flipped" word order, depends on the question whether it governs a main verb or a modal. The two cases are illustrated below. (41) a. daft er die Lieder gesungen haben wird. that he the songs sung have will 'that he will have sung the songs' b. 7dafi er die Lieder wird gesungen haben. (42) a. *dqfi er die Lieder singen konnen haben wird. that he the songs sang be-able-to have will 'that he will have been able to sing the songs' b. daft er die Lieder wird haben singen konnen. c. * daft er die Lieder haben singen konnen wird. d. *dqft er die Lieder wird singen konnen haben. As in the analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994), we may assume that the status of haben as a trigger for "flipped" word order is determined by the verbal complement it governs. That is, there is a reentrancy between the value of GVOR (FLIP in the analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa) on the complement of haben and haben itself:11
The most important difference between the proposal of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994) and our own is that Hinrichs and Nakazawa employ two rule schemata which explicitly distinguish between the derivation of verbal complexes and other verbal projections. Our HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema, on the other hand, is general, and applies to all HEAD-COMPLEMENT structures in the grammar.12 The feature NPCOMPS, which distinguishes the verbal complex from other verbal projections, is replaced by a distinction between I-ZONE and O-ZONE in our account. Note, however, that since this distinction applies to sister nodes in a "flat" VP, we can account for a strictly larger set of word order possibilities. The FLIP feature of Hinrichs and Nakazawa, finally, is replaced by GVOR. Whereas Hinrichs and Nakazawa use FLIP only to determine the order of a lexical head and its complement, the LP statements for GVOR must be more sophisticated, as they must order a complement relative to its governor without the aid of phrase structure (see also Kathol, 1998).
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
61
3.4. Partial VP Fronting The I-ZONE principle (26b) says that all I-ZONE daughters in a HEAD-COMPLEMENT structure must be of type word. One reason for stating this requirement as a constraint on rule schemata is that it allows us to refer to the distinction between phrasal and lexical signs without having to introduce a SYNSEM feature such as LEX or NPCOMPS. A more important reason for associating this constraint with the HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema is that it leads to a monotonic account of partial VP fronting.13 As we pointed out in van Noord and Bouma (1996), one advantage of allowing the HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema to build partial VPS is that it can be used to derive the partial VPS which may be found in fronted position in main clauses. The fronted VP lesen konnen in (44), for instance, can be assigned the structure in (45): (44) Lesen konnen wird er das Buch schon. read be-able-to will he the book already 'He'll surely be able to read the book.'
The use of one rule schema which allows both partial and full VPS to be derived, without having to accept spurious ambiguity, is an improvement of the analysis of Nerbonne (1994), who had to introduce a special rule to account for the derivation of partial VPS in fronted position. The present setup has an important additional benefit. To account for the fact that a partial VP in fronted position could be selected by an auxiliary or modal verb that normally would require a lexical (i.e., [LEX + ]) verbal complement, Nerbonne introduced a complement extraction rule that moved an element from the coMPS-list of a verb to SLASH, and removed any specification for LEX in the process. In our account, the complication in the complement extraction rule disappears. Since we do not state in the lexical entries of argument-inheritance verbs that they select for a lexical verbal complement, we can simply assume that the canonical complement extraction lexical rule (as given in Pollard and Sag, 1994: Chap. 9) applies:
62
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
This rule can be applied to the lexical entry for wird as follows:14
Example (44) is now derived as follows:15
Note that the element on SLASH of s is [ZONE inner], but is not constrained to be of type word. The fronted partial VP can therefore be combined with the S/VP as a HEAD-FILLER structure without problem. In particular, the I-ZONE principle (which requires i-zone elements in HEAD-COMPLEMENT structures to be of type word) does not apply to this construction. The elimination of a special rule schema to build partial VPS together with the elimination of the complication of Nerbonne's complement extraction rule is a significant improvement. It should be noted, however, that fronting of a single modal (as in (49)) can only be excluded by means of a special constraint: (49) *konnen wird er das Buch schon lesen.
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
63
These examples are seen as problematic by Baker (1994) and Kathol (1998), for instance, and are one of the reasons why Kathol does want to maintain the Hinrichs and Nakazawa analysis as far as constituent structure is concerned. In terms of the fragment developed here, these cases can be ruled out by requiring that a filler may not have any I-ZONE elements on its coMPS-list: (50) In head-filler structures, the COMPS value of the filler daughter is a list of elements marked [ZONE outer].
4. WORD ORDER IN DUTCH VERB CLUSTERS
In this section we revise and extend the analysis of Dutch presented in van Noord and Bouma (1996). As in German, Dutch subordinate clauses are verb-final. If the clause is headed by a modal, an auxiliary, or a verb such as horen ('to hear'), proberen ('to try'), helpen ('to help') or laten ('to let') (these are so-called "verb-raising" verbs), the head of its nonfinite VP-complement must occur right of the head of the main clause. This is illustrated in (5la, b). As the head of the nonfinite VP can be a verb-raising verb itself, the construction can (in principle) lead to an arbitrary number of crossing dependencies between preverbal complements and verbs subcategorizing for these complements. This is illustrated in (51c), where subscripts are used to make the dependencies explicit: (51) a. dat Jan het boek ml lezen. that John the book wants read 'that John wants to read the book' b. dat Jan Marie het boek loot lezen. that John Mary the book lets read 'that John lets Mary read the book' c. dat Jan1 Marie2 het boek3 wil1 laten2 lezen3. that John Mary the book wants let read 'that John wants to let Mary read the book' Following our proposals for German in the prevous section, we assume that Dutch "verb-raising" verbs select for a list of complements consisting of a verb and the complements selected by that verb. The word order constraints for complement inheritance verbs make reference to GVOR. Furthermore, complement inheritance verbs select an i-zone complement.
64
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
Some lexical elements are given next:
Note that directionality only orders complements relative to the head; the order of complements with respect to each other is left open. In previous work on Dutch (van Noord and Bouma, 1996), we have assumed that obliqueness provides an ordering of complements: if C1 is more oblique than C2 (i.e., (the SYNSEM value of) C1 follows C2 on COMPS), then C1 appears closer to the head than C2. For German, we have been satisfied with the assumption that the order of nonverbal o-zone complements is not (only) determined by obliqueness. For Dutch, this appears to be much less likely. Consider the example in (53), for instance. The perception verb zien is a complement inheritance verb selecting for a verbal complement and an NP object (Marie). Both the NP Marie and the PP naar huis are o-zone complements of the head ziet. The order of both is strictly determined by the order on COMPS, however. (53) a. dat Jan Marie naar huis ziet lopen. that Jan Marie toward home sees walk 'that Jan sees Mary walk home' b. *dat Jan naar huis Marie ziet lopen.
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
65
This suggests that the Obliqueness word order constraint must apply for o-zone elements. This constraint, applicable to Dutch, is given in (54):
A derivation for the VP of example (51c) can now be given as follows:
The word order given in this example is the only grammatical word order, and the only word order allowed by the analysis. This is so because the NFS are ordered to the left of the verbs because of directionality; the order of the NFS is determined by obliqueness; and the order of the verbs is determined by the Governor Constraints. In comparison with the analysis presented in van Noord and Bouma (1996), the introduction of governor word order constraints has no consequences for the word orders that can or cannot be derived in the case of ordinary verb-raising verbs.16 It is more interesting for cases where governors and governees do not appear in strict left-to-right order, as in participle inversion constructions and in constructions involving separable prefixes. 4.1. Separable Prefixes Certain verbs in Dutch subcategorize for a so-called "separable prefix." These particle-like elements appear as part of the verb in subordinate clauses, but appear in clause-final position if their governor heads a main clause: (56) a. dat Jan Marie aan spreekt. that John Mary PREFIX speaks 'that John speaks to Mary' b. Jan spreekt Marie aan.
66
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
In complex verb-sequences, the prefix can appear not only as part of its governor, but also in positions further to the left: (57) a. dat Jan Marie zou hebben aan gesproken. that John Mary would have PREFIX spoken 'that John would have spoken to Mary' b. dat Jan Marie zou aan hebben gesproken. c. dat Jan Marie aan zou hebben gesproken. d. *dat Jan Marie zou hebben gesproken aan. These examples can now be treated straightforwardly. A verb selecting a separable prefix requires this prefix to be [GVOR -» , i-zone]. This predicts correctly that this prefix can occur anywhere to the left of the governing verb within the verb cluster. The lexical entry for spreken and an example derivation are given next:
Note that apart from the word order given in (59), the orders aan zou hebben gesproken and zou hebben aan gesproken are derivable as well. The verb cluster sometimes also contains an adjective. The following examples are similar to a large set of examples given in Geerts et al. (1984): (60) a. dat de Sovjetunie zich niet zal laten bang will let afraid (ADJ) maken door cruiseraketten. make 'that the Soviet Union will not be scared by cruise missiles'
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
67
b. dat hij het de leerlingen had duidelijk gemaakt. had clear (ADJ) made dat het examen niet moeilijk zou zijn. 'he had made it clear to the pupils that the exam would not be difficult' The adjective can be placed at any position left of its governor, just like separable prefixes. The difference with compound verbs which require a separable prefix is not always easy to make. Such examples are not treated as compound verbs in Geerts et al. (1984). Interestingly, such verbs can often take a full adjectival phrase instead of a single adjective. In those cases, however, the ADJP cannot be part of the verb cluster: (61) al.
dat de Sovjetunie zich niet erg bang zal laten maken door cruiseraketten. 'that the Soviet Union will not be scared very much by cruise missiles' a2. * dat de Sovjetunie zich niet zal laten erg bang maken door cruiseraketten. bl. dat hij het de leerlingen heel erg duidelijk had gemaakt dat het examen niet moeilijk zou zijn. 'that he had made it clear to the pupils that the exam would not be difficult' b2. *dat hij het de leerlingen had heel erg duidelijk gemaakt dat het examen niet moeilijk zou zijn.
These examples can be analyzed straightforwardly by assuming that certain verbs subcategorize for an adjectival phrase. Those verbs do not constrain the ZONE feature of this adjectival phrase. This implies that if such an ADJP is selected in the I-ZONE, it must be a word; if it is selected as part of the O-ZONE it can be either a word or a full phrase. 4.2. Participle Inversion The tense auxiliaries hebben ('have') and zijn ('be') are verb raisers which take a past participle as complement. These auxiliaries are special, however, in that they may take their complement either to the left or to the right: (62) a. dat Jan het boek heeft gelezen. that John the book has read 'that John has read the book' b. dat Jan het boek gelezen heeft.
68
G. Bounia and G. van Noord
In more complex examples, the pattern is that the participle is either to the left of the finite verb, or the last verb of the cluster: (63) a. dat Jan het boek moet hebben gelezen. that John the book must have read 'that John must have read the book' b. dat Jan het boek gelezen moet hebben. Examples such as (64) 1*dat Jan het boek moet gelezen hebben. are acceptable only to a minority of speakers. The analysis of these examples proceeds as follows. For those speakers that accept examples such as (64), we assume that the lexical entry for hebben leaves the GVOR value of its complement unspecified:
This results in a situation in which the participle may occur anywhere left of the auxiliary within the cluster: both (63a, b) and (64) are derivable. For the standard dialect we assume that the participle may only precede the governing auxiliary if it also precedes the head. Thus, the features for directionality and governor must agree. A modified lexical entry which implements this constraint is given below:
Note that the reentrancy between GVOR and DIR avoids the introduction of two separate lexical entries (i.e., one for the situation where the participle follows the auxiliary, and one for the situation where it precedes it). In (64), the participle gelezen precedes its governor, but follows the head of the phrase (i.e., zou\ and thus no derivation on the basis of the modified lexical entry for hebben is possible.
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
69
Summarizing, this analysis correctly predicts the following set of facts, involving both a separable prefix and a participle: (67) a.
dat Jan Marie zou hebben aan gesproken. that John Mary would have to (PREFIX) spoken (PSP) 'that John would have spoken to Mary' b. dat Jan Marie zou aan hebben gesproken. c. dat Jan Marie aan zou hebben gesproken. d. *dat Jan Marie zou hebben gesproken aan. e. dat Jan Marie aan gesproken zou hebben. f. * dat Jan Marie gesproken aan zou hebben. g. *dat Jan Marie gesproken zou aan hebben. h. *dat Jan Marie gesproken zou hebben aan. i. ? *dat Jan Marie aan zou gesproken hebben. j. ? *dat Jan Marie zou aan gesproken hebben. k. * dat Jan Marie zou gesproken aan hebben. 1. * dat Jan Marie zou gesproken hebben aan.
The most interesting cases are the pairs (67e, f) and (67i, j). Example (e) is allowed, because the prefix aan precedes its governor gesproken; in (f) this is not the case, hence this example is ruled out. The examples (i) and (j) are allowed only in those dialects which allow (64).
5. COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have developed an account of word order in Dutch and German verb clusters based on minimal assumptions about phrase structure. We have assumed that the internal structure of Dutch and German verb phrases is identical and that the word order constraints for both languages are almost identical. Word order differences between Dutch and German verb clusters are therefore a consequence of differences in lexical specification only. We have demonstrated that the kind of word order variation that has been used to argue for a branching analysis of the verb cluster in German can in fact be accounted for without introducing the "verb cluster" as a subphrase of the VP. Furthermore, since a "flat" VP leaves room for a considerable amount of word order variation, phenomena which are problematic for a branching analysis can be accounted for as instances of word order variation as well. Finally, our revised account of "argument-inheritance" verbs leads to an improved analysis of partial VP fronting.
70
G. Bouma and G. van Noord
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The paper benefitted substantially from discussions with Andreas Kathol and from comments of Detmar Meurers and an anonymous reviewer.
NOTES *In this paper we use verb cluster as a descriptive term for the sequence of verbs which is typically found in clause-final position in German and Dutch subordinate clauses. The verbal complex is a theoretical notion and refers to the phrasal category used in some grammars to analyze verb clusters. 2 [1] © [2] denotes the list which is obtained by appending the lists [1] and [2]. 3 In the examples below, vc is a verbal complex, VP is a (partial) verb phrase, and S is a verb phrase including a subject. 4 That is, konnen can function as an infinitive which occurs as the complement of an auxiliary selecting a past participle verbal complement. 5 This aspect of the analysis is inspired by Kathol (1998). 6 As well as a number of other principles introduced in Pollard and Sag (1994), such as the HEAD FEATURE and NONLOCAL FEATURE principle. For simplicity, we are silent about other valence features, since subjects or specifiers do not play any significant role in the following examples. 7 Note, however, that we do impose the requirement that the selected complements must form a suffix of COMPS on the head daughter. This implies that the order of complements on COMPS (i.e., obliqueness) does constrain the type of partial phrases that can be derived. In this respect, our proposal differs from that of Baker (1994). 8 See Uszkoreit (1987) for an approach to the ordering of constituents in the Mittelfeld. In such an approach, obliqueness could be one of the several competing constraints determining word order. 9 Kathol adopts a somewhat different definition. Since he assumes a valence feature VCOMPL, on which verbal complements are represented and on which there is no inheritance, and since only the governors of verbal complements need to be identified, it is possible to define the governor of a verbal complement as the sign on whose vcoMPL-list this complement appears. 10 This specification may seem redundant for cases where the modal governs a main verb, but is crucial for cases in which a modal governs another modal or auxiliary verb (i.e., this constraint will rule out *kann singen mussen). 11 Note that this analysis predicts that example (41b) is ungrammatical. A reviewer claims that this example in fact is grammatical. That would constitute a problem for the analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994), and also for our own analysis.
Word Order Constraints on Verb Clusters
71
12
One might object that the feature ZONE encodes a distinction between two topological fields that is relevant to VPS only. This is not necessarily an objection, for if nonverbal heads only select [ZONE outer] complements, the zone LP constraints are satisfied trivially, while the zone principle will require that the head daughter must be lexical. On the other hand, it is not impossible that the distinction between I-ZONE and O-ZONE complements might play a role for nonverbal heads as well (i.e., to distinguish clitic-like elements from other complements). 13 See Miiller (1996) for an alternative monotonic proposal. 14 We assume that finite verbs include a subject as least oblique element on their COMPS-list. 15
The adjunct schon is taken to be a modifier of the verb konnen and is added to its COMPS-list by means of a lexical rule (see van Noord and Bouma, 1994). In order to account for verb-second, we could follow Netter (1992), by assuming that main clause word order is obtained by a rule schema which lets a finite verb combine with a clause with an empty verbal head daughter. The COMPS feature of the finite verb (as well as some other features) must unify with that of the empty verb. Alternatively, it is also possible to analyze initial verb-placement by extending the linear precedence component. Notice that in such an approach we should be careful to limit the scope of the linear precedence statements given here. 16 Infinite verbs in Dutch are often preceded by te: (68) dat Jan Marie lijkt te haten. that John Mary seems to hate 'that John seems to hate Mary' It may be worthwhile pointing out that we treat te as an inflectional marker, and not as a separate word: unlike to in English, no material (not even separable prefixes) can ever intervene between te and the infinitive. Therefore, te haten is of type WORD.
REFERENCES Baker, K. (1994). An integrated account of "Modal Flip" and partial verb phrase fronting in German. In Proceedings of the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Geerts, G., W. Haeseryn, J. de Rooij, and M. C. van den Toorn (1984). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1989). Flipped out: AUX in German. In Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 187-202. Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994). Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 11-38. Lecture Note Series. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
72
G. Bouma and G, van Noord
Kathol, A. (1998). Constituency and linearization of verbal complexes. In E. Hinrichs, T. Nakazawa, and A. Kathol (eds.), Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax, 221-270. Academic Press, New York. Kiss, T. (1994). Obligatory coherence—an investigation into the syntax of modal and semi-modal verbs in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 71-107. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Manning, C., and I. Sag (1995). Dissociations between Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Unpublished manuscript (draft). Manning, C., I. Sag, and M. lida (1996). The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. In T. Gunji (ed.), Studies on the Universality of Constraint-Based Phrase Structure Grammars. Osaka University. Meurers, W. D. (1994). A Modified View of the German Verbal Complex. Handout of a talk presented at the 1994 HPSG Workshop, Heidelberg. Miiller, S. (1996). Yet another paper about partial verb phrase fronting in German. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Copenhagen. Nerbonne, J. (1994). Partial verb phrases and spurious ambiguities. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 109-149. Lecture Note Series. CSLI, Stanford, CA. Netter, K. (1992). On non-head non-movement. In G. Gorz (ed.), KONVENS 92. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/New York. Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA. Reape, M. (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 151-197. CSLI Publications, CA. Sag, I. (1995). Constraint-Based Extraction (without a Trace). Unpublished manuscript (draft), Stanford University, November 1995. Uszkoreit, H. (1987). Word Order and Constituent Structure in German. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. van Noord, G., and G. Bouma (1994). Adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Kyoto, van Noord, G., and G. Bouma (1996). Dutch verb clustering without verb clusters. In P. Blackburn and M. de Rijke (eds.), Specifying Syntactic Structures, 123-153. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. In press.
CONSTRAINING ARGUMENT MERGER THROUGH ASPECT MIRIAM BUTT1 Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft Universit'dt Konstanz Konstanz, Germany
1. INTRODUCTION The essential insight to be accounted for with regard to complex predicates goes back to first examinations of Romance causative constructions in terms of Clause Union within the framework of Relational Grammar (RG), most notably in Aissen and Perlmutter (1983) (see also Gibson and Raposo, 1986; Davies and C. Rosen, 1988). The central issue to be resolved is the nonisomorphy problem in complex predicates: a biclausal predicate-argument structure corresponds to a monoclausal syntactic structure, rather than to a syntactically expressed matrix verb with an embedded complement.2 The Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) approach to complex predicates presented here retains the fundamental insights of the work in RG, but provides an analysis in a nonderivational framework. This allows for more linguistic versatility than was possible in the original RG approach and renders a more complete analysis of the problem posed by complex predicates. LFG provides a particularly good vehicle for the treatment of complex predicates, as it postulates several mutually constraining levels of syntactic representation, underpinned by a rigorously defined formalism, and has seen the proposal of a simple but Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax
73
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
74
Miriam Butt
powerful theory of linking from predicate-argument structures to grammatical functions. As part of the analysis, the notion of Argument Fusion is formulated at a(rgument)-structure and is taken to characterize complex predicate formation (clause union), whether it be syntactic, as is the case with Romance Causatives or the Urdu3 Permissive (see section 3.1), or morphological, as is the case with Urdu causatives (see section 4). In an attempt to formulate a restrictive, cross-linguistic theory of complex predicate formation, Argument Fusion is viewed as the a-structure analog to syntactic control. This strict view of Argument Fusion is in direct conflict with previous analyses presented for morphological causatives in Bantu and Marathi (Alsina and Joshi, 1991; Alsina, 1992), where Argument Fusion is taken to be subject to parameterization across languages, based on semantic factors such as affectedness. As part of a reanalysis of similar causative data from Urdu it is suggested that by taking into account the influence of compositional aspect (e.g., Tenny, 1987; Krifka, 1992) a more constrained view of Argument Fusion and a more elegant and systematic account of the interaction of affectedness and specificity with argument structure can be formulated. The notion of Argument Fusion in combination with a consideration of aspectual influence allows a view of linking theory which includes both thematic and aspectual factors (in the spirit of Grimshaw's, 1990, proposals for argument structure) and has as a consequence a cleaner characterization of the syntax-semantics interface, particularly with regard to the interaction of lexical information with nonlexical aspect.
2. PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO COMPLEX PREDICATES 2.1. State of the Art
With the advent of Baker's (1988) theory of incorporation, the treatment of complex predication lost the flexibility and intuitive Tightness that characterized much of the work on Clause Union in RG. In particular, the assumption of the Mirror Principle in combination with the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) predicted that morphological processes exactly mirrored syntactic processes, i.e., that morphological elements were subject to the same movement constraints (e.g., head-to-head movement) as syntactic elements, and that each 0-role must always have a syntactic realization (see also Marantz's, 1984, principle M). While Baker proposes ingenious solutions which appear to generalize over a number of cross-linguistic phenomena, the rigid requirements of the UTAH lack the flexibility needed for an insightful account of complex predicates.
Constraining Argument Merger
75
Furthermore, while Baker makes a very strong claim as to the underlying syntactic similarity of applicatives and causatives, his approach does not explain why applicatives (and passives) only involve one event, while causatives involve two (event of causation, and the caused event). Neither can his account be extended to provide a semantics of Noun Incorporation which captures the parallels to Germanic bare plural constructions (van Geenhoven, 1995, 1996). These facts are clearly reflected in the amount of work done in recent years that takes the notion of an independent level of argument structure seriously. The work cuts across differing syntactic theories, so there is some variation in the approaches to mapping between argument structure and grammatical relations. However, there is a shared intuition that certain generalizations must be stated at an independent level of argument structure (S. Rosen, 1989; Grimshaw, 1990; Jackendoff, 1990; T. Mohanan, 1994a; Alsina, 1996; Neeleman, 1994; Butt, 1995; Manning and Sag, 1998; Manning, 1995). In fact, as the behavior of the Urdu Permissive in contrast with an instructive construction clearly illustrates (see section 3.1), the crucial generalizations to account for the contrast between these two constructions can only be stated in terms of a theory of linking that takes argument structure to be encoded at an independent level of representation. In a sense then, if one took the liberty of reinterpreting the initial stratum in RG as representing argument structure, and the final stratum as grammatical relations, the strata in the middle would reflect the mapping or linking principles (Kiparsky, 1987) formulated in more recent theories. Thus, we seem to be back to the initial insights formulated in Aissen and Perlmutter (1983).
2.2. Argument Merger The examples in (1) and (2) illustrate well-known examples of Spanish causativization: (1) La hice correr. her.Acc I-made run 'I made her run.' (2) Le hice buscar las herramientes. her.Dat I-made seek the tools 'I made her look for the tools.' The clitics la and le in clause intial position indicate that clause union must have taken place (clitic climbing) so that all the arguments of the
76
Miriam Butt
embedded predicate now function as arguments of the matrix predicate. The figure in (3) provides the analysis of (2), as proposed by Aissen and Perlmutter (1983:384) within RG. The matrix verb hacer 'make' requires two arguments: a causer argument (the 1-arc) and a predicate (the 2-arc). The arguments of this embedded predicate, buscar 'seek,' are "unified" with the arguments of the matrix predicate, as indicated by the "U." The figure in (3) thus represents a complex predicate with three arguments: ((3 ) Original RG Clause Union Analysis
Though this early RG analysis provides a basic and intuitive insight into complex predicate formation in terms of a rather simple and clean idea, Aissen and Perlmutter (1983) struggle with the problem of variable case assignment on the causee. In (2), the clitic le representing the causee is realized in the dative case for the transitive verb. In the causativized intransitive in (1), however, the causee is accusative. This alternation does not follow from any independent principles, but must be stipulated as given in (4), where 2-arcs receive the accusative, and 3-arcs the dative case (Aissen and Perlmutter, 1983:384). (4) a. The final 1 of a finally intransitive complement heads a 2-arc in the matrix clause. b. The final 1 of a finally transitive complement heads a 3-arc in the matrix clause.
Constraining Argument Merger
77
S. Rosen (1989) in her treatment of Romance eausatives within a Government-Binding (GB) approach makes use of an explicit level of argument structure and builds on the idea of Argument Merger proposed in Grimshaw and Mester (1988) for Japanese sum 'do.' However, despite the overall strength of her proposal, she has to resort to essentially the same stipulations as Aissen and Perlmutter in order to model the case alternation in eausatives within her framework: the embedded agent must be specially marked with a +C in order to ensure the assignment of dative or accusative case, depending on the valency of the embedded predicate.4
2.3. Lexical Semantics and Syntax: A One-to-One Relationship? S. Rosen distinguishes between Full Merger for Italian and Partial Merger for French and Spanish and correlates this with the absence or presence of an embedded IP node. Under her view, as under Baker's view, argument structure and phrase structure thus exhibit a very close relationship, reflecting fundamental beliefs about the correspondence of thematic arguments to their syntactic realization. Under Baker's approach, the UTAH encodes this belief. In other approaches, the Theta Criterion in combination with the Projection Principle ensures the one-to-one relationship of arguments to syntactic projections. In LFG, it is the Principle of Function-Argument Biuniqueness. UTAH (Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis). Identical thematic relationships between items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure (Baker, 1988:46). Theta Criterion. Every term of LF that requires a theta role is associated with one and only one position to which theta roles are assigned, and each theta role determined by the lexical properties of a head is uniquely associated with one and only one argument (reformulation taken from Baker, 1988:37). Function-Argument Biuniqueness. G = g 1 ,...,g n is a possible grammatical function assignment to P(1,..., m) if and only if the mapping from 1,..., m to G defined by i >-» gi is injective (one-to-one and into) (Bresnan, 1982:163). A notable exception to this generally accepted view is found in Jackendoff (1990), who explicitly argues for the need of having two arguments link to one and the same syntactic NP. In fact, overwhelming evidence from languages such Chinese, Dutch, German, and Hindi/Urdu (Li, 1995; Neeleman, 1994; T. Mohanan, 1994a; Butt, 1995; Alsina, 1995) points to
78
Miriam Butt
the fact that the restrictions expressed by Function-Argument Biuniqueness or the Theta Criterion must be weakened. At the very least, they cannot apply in quite the way envisioned to date. For example, Alsina (1993:81-82) instead proposes an Argument-to-Function Uniqueness condition. I adopt this condition here.5 Argument-to-Function Uniqueness. There cannot be two distinct syntactic functions with the same argument value. The adoption of this more flexible constraint entails that more than one argument may correspond to a single syntactic function, thus opening the door for argument fusion. 2.4. Argument Fusion The assumption of the weaker principle of Argument-to-Function Uniqueness frees Alsina (1993) from the need to attempt a strict one-to-one mapping from arguments to syntactic positions. Following T. Mohanan (1988) for Malayalam, he posits both the traditionally accepted two place causative, and an additional three place causative. These are illustrated in (5) and (6). The two place causative accounts for constructions with optional oblique causees in Romance, while the three place causative is taken to form the causatives in (1) and (2). Note that in the three place causative two arguments are assumed to map to the same syntactic constituent. This is indicated by the bar connecting them and can be thought of as Argument Fusion, which combines two arguments, rendering only one of them visible for linking purposes.
The case marking alternations observed in (1) and (2) now follow from independent principles of LFG's linking theory in which arguments are linked to grammatical functions, and the further assumption that in Romance the dative case is assigned to the thematically most prominent internal argument (Alsina, 1993).
Constraining Argument Merger
79
This nonstipulative account of case marking is a nice result of the type of Argument Fusion or Composition engendered by (6). As already noted, it does violate the Principle of Function-Argument Biuniqueness in LFG. And it is exactly because (6) would violate the corresponding constraint in GB that S. Rosen avoids the notion of Argument Fusion and the concomitant responsibilities of formulating appropriate restrictions on it. Similarly, approaches to Romance complex predicates within HPSG such as Monachesi (1995) or Manning and Sag (1998) avoid the question of Argument Fusion. These approaches rely on the mechanism of Argument Composition, first introduced by Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1990) for a treatment of verb clusters in German, which is similar to the original RG clause union analyses and the notion of Argument Merger first introduced by Grimshaw and Mester (1988) in that a matrix predicate (e.g., a restructuring verb in Romance) is simply postulated to subcategorize for a further predicate and, by extension, for all the arguments of that predicate. The possibility of identifying two arguments with one another, as illustrated above, never arises.6 However, as Alsina (1993) and Butt (1995) have argued for Romance causatives and Urdu complex predicates, respectively, a satisfactory analysis of the wide range of data involved cannot be achieved without such a notion. Once this position is granted, some questions which arise immediately must necessarily be considered. How can Argument Fusion be thought of formally? What restrictions operate on Argument Fusion: can any argument simply be fused with any other argument, and if so, is this supported by linguistic phenomena? In this paper, I make a first attempt at formulating a restrictive theory of complex predicate formation. Building on earlier work, I propose defining characteristics of complex predicates, and formulate restrictions on the types of argument merger that are available. Ultimately, the enterprise should yield an intuitive and simple account of complex predicates crosslinguistically. Within the scope of this paper, I first briefly recapitulate evidence for Argument Fusion from the Urdu Permissive, which serves as an excellent case in point for the need to recognize argument structure as an independent level of representation (see Butt, 1994, 1995, for an extensive discussion). Building on the insights provided by the Urdu Permissive, I then examine Urdu causatives in light of Alsina's (1992, 1993) approach and propose a restrictive view of Argument Fusion in conjunction with the integration of aspectual information into the theory of linking, which has the desirable result of rendering some of the linking mechanism more intuitively transparent.
80
Miriam Butt
3. COMPLEX PREDICATE FORMATION 3.1. The Urdu Permissive Data from agreement, anaphora, and control very clearly show that the Urdu Permissive in (7)7 must be analyzed as a complex predicate. Furthermore, a comparison of the Permissive with the superficially similar Instructive in (8) shows that phrase structure cannot be taken to determine complex predicate status. (7) anjum = ne saddaf = ko haar Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat necklace.M = Nom banaa-ne di-yaa make-Inf.Obl give-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum let Saddaf make a necklace.' (8) anjum = ne saddaf = ko [haar Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat necklace.M = Nom banaa-ne = ko] kah-aa make-Inf.Obl = Acc say-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum told Saddaf to make a necklace.' The contrast between these two constructions demonstrates that complex predicate formation is best analyzed at the level of argument structure. Note that this point has also been made by Manning (1992) and Alsina (1993) for Romance complex predicates, and by T. Mohanan (1994a) for Hindi N-V complex predicates. However, the Urdu Permissive contrasted with the Instructive provides some of the clearest and most forceful evidence in favor of an argument structure analysis. The evidence comes from control, anaphora, and agreement phenomena. Only the agreement data are recapitulated here, with respect to which the Permissive robustly behaves like a simple predicate, while the Instructive must be analyzed as a matrix verb with an embedded infinitival complement. In Urdu a verb can only agree with one of its own nominative arguments (see T. Mohanan, 1994a, for details). If both the subject and the object are nominative, then the verb agrees with the subject.8 When there is no nominative argument in the clause, the verb is inflected with the default masculine singular -aa. A verb can never agree with an argument outside of its own domain of predication. The lack of agreement between the feminine object cittii 'letter' and the finite verb of the Instructive in (9) indicates that the object cannot be a matrix argument. Rather, it must be the argument of the embedded infinitive 'to write.'
Constraining Argument Merger
81
(9) anjum = ne saddaf =ko [citthii Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat note.F = Nom likh-ne = ko] kah-aa write-Inf.Obl = Acc say-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum told Saddaf to write the note.' The Permissive in (10) does not display the same pattern as the Instructive. In both (l0a) and (l0b) the finite verb agrees with the object. (10) a. anjum = ne saddaf = ko citthii Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat note.F = Nom likh-ne d-ii write-Inf.Obl give-Perf.F.Sg 'Anjum let Saddaf write a note.' b. anjum = ne saddaf = ko xat Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat letter.M = Nom likh-ne di-yaa write-Inf.Obl give-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum let Saddaf write a letter.' Because the finite verb agrees with citthii 'letter' in (l0a), this noun cannot be an embedded object, but must be analyzed as a matrix object.9 The Permissive thus behaves as if it were a simple clause headed by a single predicate. The agreement, anaphora, and control facts remain constant under scrambling as well. While this in itself is a strong indication for a nonstructural (and nonderivational) analysis of complex predicates, even more interestingly, phrase structural properties such as scrambling, negation, and coordination do not differentiate between the two constructions. A purely structural and derivational account could still, no doubt, be formulated; however, the more fruitful avenue of research would seem to lie in pursuing an analysis which allows for an independent level of argument structure, and which relates phrase structure representations to grammatical functions nonderivationally, as is the case in LFG. 3.2. Complex Predicate Analysis The essential, defining characteristics of complex predicates, as evidenced by the Permissive, can be stated as follows. (11)
Defining Properties of Complex Predicates: • The argument structure is complex (two or more predicative heads contribute arguments).
82
Miriam Butt
•
The grammatical functional structure is that of a simple predicate. In particular, it contains only a single subject. • The phrase structure may be either simple or complex. It does not necessarily determine the status of a complex predicate. As LFG encodes grammatical relations at a separate level from phrase structure, the differences and similarities between the Permissive and the Instructive can easily be accounted for in terms of f(unctional)-structure and c(onstituent)-structure properties. The fact that the Permissive is a complex predicate while the Instructive is not is expressed through the relationship between a-structure and f-structure. As shown in the abbreviated f-structure10 representation in (14) for the Permissive, a single domain of predication at f-structure corresponds to complex predication at a-structure.11 Thus, there is only one subject, one object, and one indirect object: the Permissive is flat at f-structure, but complex at a-structure. (12) anjum = ne saddaf = ko haar Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat letter.M = Nom banaa-ne di-yaa make-Inf.Obl give-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum let Saddaf make a necklace.'
The f-structure in (17) for the Instructive, on the other hand, contains two argument taking PREDS. The PRED 'say' takes an XCOMP as one of its arguments. This XCOMP represents a second, embedded domain of predication of the PRED 'write.' The Instructive is thus represented by a complex a-structure which corresponds to a complex f-structure.
Constraining Argument Merger
83
(15) anjum = ne saddaf = ko citthii Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat letter.F = Norn likh-ne = ko kah-aa write-Inf.Obl = Acc say-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum told Saddaf to write a letter.'
(16)
(17)
As LFG defines f-structure and c-structure as independent, but mutually constraining levels of representation, a given sentence may have more than one c-structure realization, as long as the requirements of completeness and coherence are met at f-structure (see Bresnan, 1982). The data from agreement, anaphora, and control, which indicated that the Permissive and the Instructive differ from one another, are completely accounted for at f-structure, while the data from coordination, scrambling, and negation can be accounted for at c-structure. 3.3. Light Verbs Under the approach to complex predicates taken here, argument structure must be viewed as an interface between lexical semantics and syntax. I follow T. Mohanan (1994a) in assuming that a-structure, while linked to lexical semantics, is not itself a semantic level of representation. This is in line with more structural approaches, such as Hale and Keyser (1993). However, as discussed previously, I assume that the encoding of arguments
84
Miriam Butt
at argument structure is not necessarily isomorphic with their syntactic realization. A further idea found in many analyses of complex predicates, and one that is adopted here as well, is that complex predicate formation is triggered by light verbs, a term first used by Jespersen (1954) to characterize verbs which appear to have been semantically "bleached." The predicates are incomplete and subcategorize for another predicate (Alsina, 1993; Butt, 1995). I assume that the predicates are incomplete in the sense that the event structure denoted by the light verb is incomplete and must be combined with the event structure of the main verb. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into the semantics of events, the idea of an incomplete event is supported by the fact that the two events involved in causation or permission are cognitively separable and yet difficult to modify individually, as illustrated by the contrast in (18): (18) a. ??anjum = ne saddaf = ko aaj haar Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F=Dat today necklace.M = Nom banaa-ne kal di-yaa make-Inf.Obl yesterday give-Perf.M.Sg. 'Anjum yesterday let Saddaf make a necklace today.' b. anjum = ne saddaf = ko aaj haar Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Dat today necklace.M = Nom banaa-ne = ko kal kah-aa make-Inf.Obl = Acc yesterday say-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum told Saddaf yesterday to make a necklace today.' Light verbs thus trigger a merger of argument structures which results in a single predicational element, with a single, albeit internally complex, event structure. I now return to the question: Why Argument Fusion? Why postulate a potentially unrestricted formal device as part of complex predicate formation instead of sticking simply to the notion of argument structure merger without the concomitant identification of two arguments? The position taken in this paper is that one needs both concepts, just as both the fundamental syntactic notions of Equi (control) and Raising are needed. In particular, as Neeleman (1994) also observes for Dutch and German consider constructions, an adequate account of the Urdu Permissive must take into account that the permittee in (18a) plays two roles: the recipient (goal) of the permission, and the agent of the embedded action. Note that the Permissive de in fact derives from the ditransitive main verb 'give.' As all goals are marked by dative case in Urdu, including "experiencer" subjects (K. P. Mohanan and T. Mohanan, 1990), the dative case marking
Constraining Argument Merger
85
on the permittee follows immediately from an account allowing for a three place permissive light verb in conjunction with Argument Fusion. It could be argued that in the process of "semantic bleaching" the permissive form might have lost all of its arguments except the permitter. However, this is not supported by the behavior of another light verb derived from 'give,' illustrated in (19): (19) anjum = ne ghar banaa di-yaa Anjum.F = Erg house.M = Nom make give-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum built a house.' As an Aspectual light verb, de is used to signal telicity, and selects the case marking on the subject (see Butt, 1995). Unlike the Permissive, it does not retain any other arguments. As shown in Butt (1995), the Aspectual light verbs in fact provide further evidence for an Argument Fusion approach, since an alternation between ergative and nominative case marking on subjects of complex predicates formed with these light verbs can be explained straightforwardly under the assumption of Argument Fusion.
4. URDU CAUSATIVES
A further case in point for the adoption of an Argument Fusion approach to complex predicates comes from causatives. In this section, I first detail the rather complicated pattern in Urdu and present the relative strength of an account which allows for Argument Fusion (Alsina and Joshi, 1991; Alsina, 1992). However, the particular formulation of Alsina and Joshi's account raises a question as to the viability of such an essentially unconstrained process. I address some of the formal issues involved and propose an alternative account of Urdu causatives. This account relies on the notion of Argument Fusion as well, but does so in a constrained and systematic fashion. 4.1. The Data Hindi/Urdu has two causative morphemes -aa- and -vaa-, which are historically derived from the Sanskrit allomorphs aya and apaya (Masica, 1991). Saksena (1980, 1982a, b) details a complex system of causativization and analyzes the variation in case marking on causees (accusative ko vs instrumental se) in terms of whether the causee is an affected agent or not. The fact that there are two causative morphemes available in Hindi/Urdu has led some researchers (e.g., Kachru, 1980) to posit two
86
Miriam Butt
stages of causativization, the first represented by -aa-, and the second by -vaa-. However, as Saksena (1982b) shows, the data in Hindi/Urdu do not actually allow themselves to be sorted into such a neat pattern. Rather, some notion of involved vs noninvolved causer, plus a notion of affectedness of the causee must be taken into account. In the data presented below, I abstract away from a number of complications in the system which determine when -aa- vs -vaa- is chosen (e.g., morphophonological reasons, historical gaps, the notion of involved or non-involved causer) and concentrate on the patterns Saksena details with regard to the choice of ko or se case marking on the causee. The basic pattern of causativization is illustrated in (20) and (21).12 In these cases,13 the causees (house, Saddaf) always appear as direct objects and can be either nominative (unmarked) or accusative (ko). This case alternation on direct objects in Urdu is in fact associated with specificity (Butt, 1993b).14 (20) a. makaan ban-aa house.M = Nom be made-Perf.M.Sg 'The house was built,' 'Das Haus entstand.' b. anjum = ne makaan ban-a-yaa Anjum.F = Erg house.M = Nom be made-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum built a house.' (21) a. saddaf bhag-ii Saddaf.F = Nom run-Perf.F.Sg 'Saddaf ran.' b. anjum = ne saddaf = ko bhag-a-yaa Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Ace run-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum chased Saddaf away (made her run).' Most transitives display a different pattern. The causee here is not directly affected by the caused action and can only appear as an oblique argument with the instrumental -se. (22) a. anjum = ne paodaa kaat-aa Anjum.F = Erg plant.M = Nom cut-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum cut a/the plant.' b. anjum = ne saddaf = se/*ko paoda Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Inst/Acc plant.M = Nom kaat-a-yaa cut-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had Saddaf cut a/the plant.'
Constraining Argument Merger
87
For another set of transitives (other members of this class include drink, learn, see) the agent can be said to be affected by the action, and only a direct (affected) object causee is allowed. (23) a. saddaf = ne khaanaa kha-yaa Saddaf.F = Erg food.M = Nom eat-Perf.M.Sg 'Saddaf ate food.' b.anjum = ne saddaf = ko/*se khaanaa Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Acc/Inst food.M = Nom khil-a-yaa eat-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum made Saddaf eat food (gave Saddaf food to eat).' Finally, there are some transitives which allow both oblique and direct object causees, depending on how "affected" the causee is judged to be from situation to situation (other members of this class are read, write, sing). (24) a. saddaf = ne masaalaa cakh-aa Saddaf.F = Erg spice.M = Nom taste-Perf.M.Sg 'Saddaf tasted the seasoning.' b. anjum = ne saddaf = ko masaalaa Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Acc spice.M = Nom cak^-va-yaa taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had Saddaf taste the seasoning.' c. anjum = ne saddaf = se masaalaa Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Inst spice.M = Nom cakh-va-yaa taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had the seasoning tasted by Saddaf.' The reading that (24b) must receive is that there was a situation in which Anjum wanted Saddaf in particular to taste the seasoning. In (24c), on the other hand, the emphasis is placed on the seasoning: it is important that the seasoning be tasted, whether this is done by Saddaf or some other random person is immaterial. Thus, in (24b) it is Saddaf who is "affected," while in (24c) it could instead be the seasoning. 4.2. Parameters on Argument Fusion The data presented above may appear to come in a bewildering variety, but the account proposed by Alsina and Joshi (1991) for very similar data from Marathi and Chichewa can in fact be extended successfully to the
88
Miriam Butt
Urdu data. This approach actually appears to be the only analysis to date which can account for the full range of data in Hindi/Urdu. Furthermore, it also manages to integrate Saksena's (1982b) original intuition as to the relevance of an "affected agent" into a formal theory of linking. The key to the account posited by Alsina and Joshi (1991) and Alsina (1992) is the assumption of a three place causative in conjunction with the possibility of Argument Fusion. Alsina and Joshi also continue to assume the traditional two place causative for a case alternation which encodes the relative affectedness of the causee in Malayalam causativized unergatives. (25) Kadzldzi a-na-phika maungu. (Chichewa) owl suBJ-PAST-cook pumpkins 'The owl cooked pumpkins.' (26) a. Nungu i-na-phik-itsa kadzldzi maungu. OBJECT CAUSEE porcupine SUBJ-PAST-cookcAus owl pumpkins 'The porcupine made the owl cook the pumpkins.' b. Nungu i-na-phik-itsa maungu kwa porcupine SUBJ-PAST-cookcAus pumpkins by kadzldzi. OBLIQUE CAUSEE owl 'The porcupine had the pumpkins cooked by the owl.' Like Urdu, Chichewa allows a choice in the realization of the causee. Again, the relevant distinction to be made between (26a) and (26b) appears to be in terms of the affectedness of the causee. In (26a), the affectedness of the direct object owl is emphasized; in (26b), on the other hand, the pumpkins must be interpreted as being the most affected argument. Alsina and Joshi analyze these effects in terms of different possibilities for the fusion of arguments. The possible parameters that languages may set are shown in (27). The analyses for (26a) and (26b) are shown in (28a) and (28b), respectively. (27) Parameters The patient of the causative predicate may fuse with a. the logical subject of the base predicate or b. the logical object (affected argument). (28) a. phik-itsa CAUSE < ag pt COOK < ag pt > > (OBJECT CAUSEE) COOk-CAUS
b. phik-itsa CAUSE < ag pt COOK
> (OBLIQUE CAUSEE) COOk-CAUS
Constraining Argument Merger
89
In (28a), the causee is also the patient of the cause predicate. Hence, it qualifies as an affected causee and is realized as an object. In (28b), on the other hand, fusion has taken place according to Parameter b of (27). The causee here is now not also simultaneously the patient of causation, so that it is realized as an oblique argument and the pumpkins surface as the direct object. Note, however, that there is an inconsistency in the use of the three place causative. In (28a) the causer acts upon the patient of causation in order to bring about a certain event. That is, (26a) is reasonably interpreted as describing a situation in which the porcupine acts upon the owl, so that the owl then goes and cooks the pumpkins. In (28b), on the other hand, the causer porcupine acts upon the patient of causation, which is also the patient of the embedded predicate, the pumpkins. That is, according to (28b), (26b) should actually be interpreted as the porcupine acting upon the pumpkins directly in order to bring about their cooked state, leaving the owl, the actual cooker of the pumpkins, somewhat in limbo. This point is actually indicative of a larger, technical problem with the theory of argument composition presented by Alsina and Joshi. The postulation of Parameters on Argument Fusion opens the door to any kind of combinations of arguments: one could imagine additional parameters sensitive to volitionality, benefaction, or experiencerhood. Such semantic factors governing the parameters on argument fusion preclude the formulation of any restrictive theory of complex predicate formation. Furthermore, while the notion of affectedness plays a large role, it is not defined in a satisfactory manner. What does it mean to be affected? In fact, as much recent work on the interaction between aspect and argument structure has actually focused on just this question (e.g., Tenny, 1987; Krifka, 1992), the investigation of a connection to possible aspectual influences in causativization is not only desirable, but necessary. Before moving on to a reanalysis of Urdu causatives, I address the issues raised by Argument Fusion and resolve the technical problems that may be brought up with respect to such a seemingly nonmonotonic addition to an otherwise monotonic framework. I then go on to present a very restrictive view on Argument Fusion which finds a parallel in the notion of syntactic control. 5. FORMAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1. Linking
An immediate objection to the notion of Argument Fusion can be made from both a formal and a semantic point of view in that the notion may be
90
Miriam Butt
incoherent with respect to both of these areas. However, I argue that Argument Fusion must actually be understood as the argument structure analog to syntactic control, and be viewed as an instance of the type of ©-identification proposed by Higginbotham (1985). The notion is coherent and formally unproblematic under this view. Both here and in the bulk of the literature on argument structure, its representation has been in the form of a list of roles. Consistent with general LFG architecture, argument structure can, however, alternatively be viewed as an Attribute-Value Matrix (AVM). In this paper, I propose a representation which naturally integrates the principles of linking theory as formulated in LFG (Bresnan and Kanerva, 1989; Alsina and Mchombo, 1993; Bresnan and Moshi, 1990; Bresnan and Zaenen, 1990).15 The linking theory relies primarily on the Thematic Hierarchy shown in (29), which is based on argumentation from Kiparsky (1987). (29) Thematic Hierarchy: agent < beneficiary < experiencer/goal < instrument < patient/theme < locative The thematic arguments are associated with the features [±o(bject)] and [+r(estricted)J. These features in turn provide the constraints for the mapping from a(rgument)-structure to f-structure. The correspondence between grammatical functions and features is shown in (30): (30) Grammatical Functions SUBJ OBJ OBJ0 OBL0
Features [ -r, — o] [ -r, + o] [+r, + o] [+r, — o]
The association of the features with thematic roles is governed by two classification systems: Intrinsic and Default Role Classifications, whereby the Intrinsic Classification has come to be viewed as part of the argument structure representation in more recent developments within linking theory (Bresnan and Zaenan, 1990; Alsina, 1993): Intrinsic Role Classifications Patientlike roles: [—r] Secondary patientlike roles: [+o] All others: [ —o] Default Role Classifications Highest thematic role: [-r] All others: [+r]
Constraining Argument Merger
91
The essential function of the features is to ensure that agents are usually mapped onto subjects ([ —o]), while patients and themes ([ —r]) are mapped onto objects. Thus, the [±o] feature sets the subject apart from other arguments by marking all the roles that might be mapped onto objects. The [+r] feature refers to the restrictedness of the semantic interpretation of a given grammatical function: subjects and direct objects are not restricted in terms of the thematic roles they may be associated with, while indirect objects and obliques do have a semantically restricted interpretation. Now, given that the initial set of classificatory features is considered to be intrinsic, i.e., part of the predicate-argument structure, a reasonable rendering of an argument structure representation as in (31), taken from Bresnan and Zaenen (1990:48) could be as in (32).
(31)
(32)
While linking theory was originally viewed as applying to lexical items within the lexicon, it has been successfully extended to apply beyond the lexicon (e.g., Bresnan and Zaenen, 1990, for an account of resultatives). In particular, it can also be applied to dynamic complex predicate formation in the syntax, as argued for in Butt (1995) and Alsina (1993,1996) for Urdu and Romance, respectively.16 The argument structure of the Permissive and Argument Fusion between the permittee and the agent of the embedded predicate can thus be rendered as in (33):17
(33)
92
Miriam Butt
Argument Fusion is thus taken to be the a-structure analog to functional control, the formal properties of which are well defined and understood within LFG (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan and Bresnan, 1995). Note that the embedded agent role in (33) does not have an inherent specification. In addition to the [ -o] option, which functions as the elsewhere case for the determination of intrinsic features, I assume that, when a role is subject to control as a-structure as in (33), it may not carry a separate specification. 5.2. Parallelism to Syntactic Control and Raising Having arrived at a formal understanding of Argument Fusion, the next immediate question which must be addressed is the potentially unrestricted nature of the combinatory possibilities that become available. If, as in Alsina and Joshi's approach to causatives, any argument from one a-structure could potentially be fused with any argument from another embedded a-structure, is it still possible to formulate a restrictive theory which allows the statement of strong and potentially falsifiable predictions? The answer here must clearly be in the negative, as any number of parameters in addition to the affected argument of Alsina and Joshi (1991) may be subsequently introduced. In this section, I put forward some very strong restrictions on the combinatory possibilities of argument structures. As suggested above, I propose that complex predicate formation at argument structure is analogous to (and probably historically derived from) syntactic control and raising (see Sells, 1993, for a similar idea). Accordingly, only the highest embedded argument should ever be available for fusion. This restriction is also in accordance with Neeleman's (1994) structural approach to complex predicates, in which he motivates 0-percolation only for the highest 0-role (based on independent argumentation from Williams, 1980). In our terms, the restriction argued for by Neeleman can be formulated as in (34): (34) Restriction on Argument Fusion: Only the highest 0-role may escape its domain of predication, and thus become eligible for Argument Fusion. Parallel to syntactic control and raising, I thus admit the following two combinatory possibilities for argument structures. Argument Fusion. The lowest matrix argument Argument Raising. The with the arguments of
highest embedded argument is fused with the (analogous to syntactic control (PRO)). arguments of the matrix a-structure are unified the embedded a-structure (cf. Grimshaw and
Constraining Argument Merger
93
Master's, 1988, Argument Transfer for Japanese sum, Monachesi's, (1995), use of Argument Composition within HPSG for Romance restructuring verbs). Both Argument Fusion and Raising are amply documented. The Urdu Permissive, for example, is an instance of Argument Fusion. Neeleman (1994) argues for a complex predicate, rather than a small clause, analysis for Dutch and German consider-constructions and thus provides a welldocumented example of Argument Raising, as well as positing the equivalent of Argument Fusion as defined here for Dutch resultatives. The table in (35) summarizes the correlations between complex predicate formation, argument structure combination, and syntactic control and raising:
(35) Syntax (f-structure) a-structure
Control PRO controlled Argument controlled (fusion)
Raising Exceptional Case Marking Arguments unified (raising)
Complex predicate No Yes
Note that although I cite the notions of Argument Transfer and Argument Composition as being closely related to the notion of Argument Raising, the phenomena for which these analyses were originally proposed do not necessarily provide well-documented instances of Argument Raising as formulated here, i.e., as leading to complex predicate formation (see (11)). Matsumoto (1996), for example, strongly challenges an Argument Transfer analysis for Japanese sum. Similarly, it is not clear whether Romance restructuring verbs should be viewed as an instance of Argument Raising, or rather, as argued in Butt (1995), as an instance of Argument Fusion. The phenomena of German verbal complexes for which Argument Composition was originally introduced (Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1990), in fact, show no evidence of being instances of complex predicate formation (see Rambow, 1996). Also note that I make a very clear distinction between what I have described as complex predicates in terms of (11), and further constructions such as applicatives, passives, or serial verbs. While these constructions must also involve argument structure combinations, there does appear to be a difference as to the kind of combination. Applicatives and passives involve argument addition and reduction, respectively, while serial verbs are most commonly characterized by object sharing (Baker, 1989) and
94
Miriam Butt
therefore are not subject to the restriction in (34). It appears that the crucial factor differentiating the constructions must be stated in terms of event structure: passives and applicatives only involve one event, unlike the Urdu Permissive, or causatives, in which there is an event of causing-letting and the caused-permitted event. Serial verb formation, on the other hand, seems to be governed by restrictions on complex eventbundling (Durie, 1993). For example, in Sranan buy take fish is a good "normal-expected" complex event, but sell take fish is not. This issue of differences in event structure needs to be explored in much more detail and remains subject to further research. Within the scope of this paper, I now move on to a reexamination of Urdu causatives and propose an analysis which builds on the original insights of Alsina and Joshi (1991) and Saksena (1982b), but avoids the unconstrained nature of Alsina and Joshi's approach by incorporating the restricted notion of Argument Fusion presented above.
6. CAUSATIVES, ASPECT, AND AFFECTEDNESS 6.1 Interactions
An alternative approach to the notion of affectedness, which both Saksena (1982b) and Alsina and Joshi (1991) demonstrated to be directly relevant for an analysis of causatives, is offered by the literature on clausal aspect. The notion of affectedness has been shown to play a large role in the determination of clausal aspect (e.g., Tenny, 1987), and considerable effort has been put into formalization over the years (e.g., Dowty, 1979; Verkuyl, 1972; Krifka, 1992). Interestingly enough, other recent work on complex predication has noted an interaction between aspect, affectedness, and the licensing of arguments (e.g., English have (Ritter and S. Rosen, 1993) and Chinese resultatives (Li, 1995)). The accounts posited for these phenomena independently arrive at very much the same conclusions: they suggest that the licensing of arguments in the syntax is determined through an interaction of aspect with an underspecified thematic structure (compare Grimshaw's, 1990, Thematic and Aspect Tiers). While these approaches provide interesting evidence for the role of aspect in complex predication, a precise integration of aspectual information into a theory of projection (linking in our terms) has not so far been undertaken. This is not surprising, as the representation of aspectual information within the syntax is as yet not well understood. However, this
Constraining Argument Merger
95
is precisely the issue taken on in Ramchand (1997). Based on data which illustrate an interaction between aspect and argument structure in Scottish Gaelic, Ramchand extends Krifka's (1992) system of role types (defined primarily for verbs of creation and consumption) to account for a broader field of predication. This system is further combined with a theory in which verbs provide an underspecified 0-grid whose arguments are licensed in the syntax through roles assigned by the aspectual head of the construction (situated in AspP). Note that this is exactly within the spirit of the approach argued for independently by Li (1995) and Ritter and S. Rosen (1993). In particular, Ramchand also sketches an analysis for Urdu causatives, in which the affectedness of causees is accounted for through the interaction between aspect and argument structure. The crucial difference between Ramchand's approach and the analysis presented in Alsina and Joshi (1991) and Alsina (1992) is that Ramchand does not rely exclusively on lexical information provided by the predicates, but rather has lexical (thematic role) information interact with structurally determined aspectual roles. Ramchand, in fact, maintains that an approach within linking theory, where lexical information is placed in correspondence with grammatical functions cannot account satisfactorily for the full range of interactions between case marking, syntactic position, and semantic interpretation of argument NFS. In this section, I propose to show that lexically determined thematic information can be placed into a relationship with clause-based considerations of aspectual interpretation within the already existing LFG formalism, without necessarily presupposing an explicitly structural approach as that advocated by Ramchand, or assumed by Ritter and S. Rosen (1993). As LFG assumes an architecture of grammar in which several differing levels of representation are independent, but copresent in the sense that they are explicitly related to one another by the projection architecture (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan and Wedekind, 1993), a very natural analysis can be developed for Urdu causatives in which the linking of lexical thematic information to grammatical functions is also sensitive to aspectual information encoded at a different, semantic, level of representation. 6.2. Lexical and Compositional Aspect It has long been noted that verbs can be classified into several different types. The verb break, for example, entails a result state in which some object is broken where it previously was not, while a verb like run simply denotes an activity without necessarily entailing a resultant state. Vendler's (1967) classification of verbs in terms of the Aktionsart types state, activity, achievement, accomplishment, along with the very careful tests Dowty
96
Miriam Butt
(1979) formulates have come to represent a standard in examinations of verbal aspect. However, it has also long been recognized that verbal aspect cannot be based on the lexical semantics of the verb alone, but must take into account clausal influences such as adverbials, quantifiers, or the semantics of NP arguments (Verkuyl, 1972). A well-known example with respect to the latter is the alternation between (36a) and (36b), where the former must be interpreted as an achievement, and the latter as an activity. (36) a. Yassin ate an apple (*for an hour)/(in an hour). TELIC b. Yassin ate apples (for an hour)/(*in an hour). ATELIC Verkuyl (1993) and Krifka (1992) have proposed an explicit semantics for the interaction between verbal predication and argument NPs, with special emphasis on verbs of creation and consumption. The basic intuition behind their respective formalisms is a mapping of created or consumed objects onto a spatial-temporal axis. Notions like affectedness are then captured by constructing a mapping between an event denoted by a verb and its object. While a precise characterization of the respective semantic formalisms employed by Krifka and Verkuyl goes beyond the scope of this paper, the underlying intuition can be summarized roughly as follows. Internal arguments are mapped onto the event structure of a predicate. In (36a), every subpart of the event can be seen as corresponding to a subpart of the apple being consumed: the event is telic, and the object apple is affected. In (36b), on the other hand, such a strict mapping between events and objects is not possible, and a different set of event to object correspondences captures the atelic nature of the event. 6.3. Urdu Causatives Revisited The affectedness effects found for causees in Urdu do in fact interact with aspect. In (37) the causee is realized as a direct accusative object. If the causee here is indeed "affected" in the aspectual sense of Krifka (1992), the construction as a whole should be telic and therefore incompatible with a durative adverbial like for a long time, but compatible with a time-span adverbial like in ten minutes. As (37a) and (37b) illustrate, this is indeed the case. (37) a. *anjum = ne xansaamo = ko masaalaa Anjum.F = Erg cook.M.Pl = Acc spice.M = Nom barii dheer = ke liye cakh-va-yaa big time = for taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had the cooks taste the seasoning for a long time.'
Constraining Argument Merger
97
b. anjum = ne xansaamo = ko masaalaa Anjum.F = Erg cook.M.Pl = Ace spice.M = Nom das mint = me cakh-va-yaa ten minutes = in taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had the cooks taste the seasoning in ten minutes.' In (38), the causee is realized as an oblique. Under a reading where the causee is not affected, i.e., is not implicated at each stage of the caused event, the tasting event should be atelic. Recall that the oblique cook here may be only one of many tasters. As such, this construction should be compatible with both the durative adverbial in (38a) and the time-span adverbial in (38b). Again, the data bear out the prediction.18 (38) a. anjum = ne xansaamo = se masaalaa Anjum.F = Erg cook.M.Pl = Inst spice.M = Nom barii dheer = ke liye cakh-va-yaa big time = for taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had the cooks taste the seasoning for a long time.' b. anjum — ne xansaamo — se masaalaa Anjum.F = Erg cook.M.Pl = Inst spice.M = Nom das mint = me cakh-va-yaa ten minutes = in taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had the cooks taste the seasoning in ten minutes.' Having established the interconnectedness between aspect, affectedness, and case marking in Urdu causatives, I now offer an alternative view of linking, which allows an incorporation of aspectual considerations, while remaining true to the constrained theory of complex predicate formation articulated above. 6.4. Rethinking Linking 6.4.1. THEMATIC ROLES A strong view of argument structure is that the information represented at this level must be considered to be of a semantic nature, and that a statement of semantic entailments ought to be possible at this level. This expectation is exactly what has given rise to the general dissatisfaction with the use of thematic roles as a representation of argument structure. As Dowty (1991) points out very forcefully, there is simply no general consensus as to which and how many thematic roles there ought to be. It is also not clear exactly what it means to be an agent vs an instrument, or a patient vs a theme.19 As a realistic alternative, Dowty formulates the notion of protoroles, which allows the properties of a given argument to vary over
98
Miriam Butt
a collection of semantic entailments, thus allowing greater flexibility in the assignment of thematic roles, and dispensing with the need to invent a new role for each slightly differing collection of semantic entailments. Alsina (1993) imports Dowty's protoroles in a version of LFG's Linking Theory and reformulates the linking principles accordingly. In this paper, I propose to take a different approach and follow Zaenen (1993:147) in assuming that lexical meaning cannot always be characterized directly in terms of entailments. Zaenen takes the collection of Dowty's proposed agent and patient properties and uses them simply to determine whether a given argument's intrinsic feature classification will be [— o] (protoagent), or [—r] (protopatient), without worrying about semantic entailments until semantic interpretation at the level of the clause. Zaenen (1993) dispenses with a hierarchy of thematic roles. However, as she is primarily considering intransitives, this is easy to do. I propose to adopt the reduced thematic hierarchy in (39), which is essentially the hierarchy put forward in Kiparsky (1987). (39) Reduced Thematic Hierarchy: agent < good < instrument < theme < locative In comparison to the standardly assumed hierarchy in (29) within LFG's Linking Theory, I take goal to be the prototypical instantiation of beneficiary and experiencer, and theme as the label for a protopatient. The purpose of the hierarchy continues to be as standardly assumed: to rank the arguments of a predicate. The role names, however, as already argued in Grimshaw (1990), must be seen as abstract labels attached to a ranked list of arguments. I could try to dispense with the labels altogether, but as Grimshaw's (1990) attempt in this direction showed, the labels are not only handy, but also allow distinctions that cannot be achieved through a mere employment of alphabetical items such as x, y, or z. The thematic roles are viewed as fulfilling a prototypical role in a given action schema, but there is no direct evaluation of the roles in terms of semantic entailments. Rather, the parameters involved, such as affectedness, volition (with agents), or instrumentality, are properties which can be shown to have a direct syntactic influence, for example in terms of case marking or grammatical function realization. These syntactic realizations may, in turn, give rise to differing semantic interpretations. However, the semantic input from the lexical properties of a predicate takes an indirect, rather than a direct form. The primary purpose of argument structure, under this view, is to help determine the syntactic realization of a predicate's arguments in terms of grammatical functions and case marking. In this sense, then, argument structure must be viewed as a primarily syntactic level of representation.
Constraining Argument Merger
99
6.4.2. ASPECTUAL INTERPRETATION OF INTERNAL ARGUMENTS Given that aspectual considerations appear to influence the mapping from a-structure to f-structure, as evidenced by the Urdu causatives, how should aspectual notions be integrated? Grimshaw (1990) sketches a proposal for a Causation Hierarchy based on aspectual dimensions in addition to a Thematic Hierarchy, and explicitly assumes an interaction between the two. Similarly, Ramchand (1997) proposes that the projection of arguments into the syntax must take into account both an underspecified thematic hierarchy provided by the verb and a system of aspectual roles provided by the aspectual head of the clause. Based on Krifka's and Verkuyl's pioneering work centering on verbs of creation and consumption, Ramchand (1997) defines a number of differing aspectual roles for internal arguments,20 for a broader spectrum of verb types, and details their interaction with basic verb types (e.g., states, activities) to yield the aspectual interpretation of the entire clause compositionally. The differing aspectual roles express the nature of the mapping that has taken place (parts of the object mapped onto each stage of the event for creation or consumption verbs; locations of an object mapped onto stages of the event for change of location verbs, etc.). Ramchand also distinguishes between two basic types of internal arguments: those which enter into a calculation of compositional aspect (©,„,), and those which are aspectually inert (®mod). A number of different types of aspectual arguments are proposed and formally defined for result predicates such as break, predicates of movement such as push, and predicates of consumption or creation such as eat. The precise distinctions made do not interest us here. Relevant is the very explicit claim made that notions such as "affectedness" can only be introduced by an aspectual role(0//u), not by an aspectually inert one (®mod). This follows from the formal difference in how the two types of objects are taken to enter into the calculation of the semantic interpretation. In (40), the object is represented as an explicit argument of the predicate, as an individuated variable. In (41) the object is taken to be related to the predicate through a kind of modification (cf. de Hoop's, 1992, predicate modification). The crucial distinction is that only in (40) can the object be related to a time index of the verb and allow a mapping from object to event structure. In (41) there is no explicit representation of the object as an entity that may be related to the event structure of the verb, so the object is aspectually inert. (40)
(41)
100
Miriam Butt
This abstract distinction may become easier to follow through the presentation of two examples from Scottish Gaelic, which very clearly support the essential argument being made.21 In (42a) and (43a), the direct object is marked with direct case, occurs preverbally, must be interpreted as being affected, and gives rise to a telic reading of the sentence. (42) a. Tha Calum air na craobhan a ghearradh. be-Pres Calum Asp the trees-Dir OAgr cut-VNOUN 'Calum has cut the trees.' b. Tha Calum a' ghearradh nan craobhan. be-Pres Calum Asp cut-VNOUN the trees-Gen 'Calum is cutting the trees.' (43) a. Tha mi air am ball iarraidh. be-Pres I Asp the ball-Dir want-VNOUN 'I have acquired the ball.' b. Tha mi ag iarraidh a'bhuill. be-Pres I Asp want-VNOUN the ball-Gen 'I want the ball.' In (42b) and (43b), on the other hand, the direct object appears postverbally in the genitive, cannot be interpreted as being affected, and the sentence has an atelic reading. In the (a) examples the object is therefore taken to be aspectually relevant, as expressed in (40); in the (b) examples, it must be analyzed as being aspectually inert, as expressed in (41).
6.4.3. LINKING In some languages, like Scottish Gaelic, the contribution of the aspectual head can clearly be shown to be distinct from that of the predicate. In other languages, like English, these two sources of information appear to be collapsed into the verbal predicate. Precisely where the information may be encoded does not, however, detract from the fact that thematic information is provided exclusively by the lexical predicate, while aspectual information is sensitive to a collection of information at the clause level. Aspectual information thus should not be encoded as a direct part of linking theory. However, I would like to adopt the fundamental distinction made by Ramchand between aspectually relevant and aspectually inert arguments. In particular, I would like to take into account the fact that only the former can give rise to an interpretation in which the object is affected. The need for a special, stipulative, feature such as [+affected] can thus be avoided at a-structure.
Constraining Argument Merger
101
Looking back at the specifications for the intrinsic classification of 0-roles, repeated below, note that these primarily seek to make a distinction between differing types of internal arguments. In particular, the distinction between patientlike [—r] roles and secondary patientlike [+o] roles was primarily posited to account for the rather complicated pattern of double objects in applicative Bantu constructions. While I believe that the analyses presented for these constructions should also ultimately be reanalyzed within the approach adopted here, such a reanalysis is clearly beyond the scope of the paper. Intrinsic Role Classifications Patientlike roles: [-r] Secondary patientlike roles: [ +o] All others: [—o] The intrinsic property of [ +o] for these applicative objects can simply be retained for the moment, as it does not interact directly with the particular set of data examined here. None of the following proposals for the linking of objects in causatives thus has an immediate impact on the analyses presented for Bantu in Bresnan and Kanerva (1989), Bresnan and Moshi (1990), or Alsina and Mchombo (1993). What I propose is to make a finer distinction between the set of "patientlike" roles, basically themes in terms of the reduced thematic hierarchy in (39), and to incorporate the idea that some arguments may be aspectually contentful, while others are aspectually inert: Revised Intrinsic Classifications Themes: [—r] (aspectually inert) or [+r] Secondary patientlike roles: [+o] All others: [ -o] This slight amendment to the linking theory has the effect of linking object themes to either OBJ ([— r]) or OBJS ([+r]). Recall that the [-r] in linking theory was intended to indicate semantic unrestrictedness, while [+r] indicates that the object is restricted to express some particular semantic information. Standardly, this type of information has been expressed in terms of thematic roles, so that one could differentiate between simple OBJS, OEJbeneficiary, or OBJgo. Thus, the semantically restricted object was annotated to indicate which precise thematic role it was linked to. Alsina (1993) argues very clearly that this method of labeling semantically restricted objects is redundant. Given the architecture of LFG, where the various levels of representation are copresent and related to one another via the projection architecture it is simply redundant to express information already represented at a-structure again at f-structure, i.e., in terms of
102
Miriam Butt
grammatical functions like OBJO. Alsina thus dispenses with the distinction and allows only OBJS. I am essentially in agreement with Alsina's line of argumentation, but retain the notational distinction between OBJ and OBJS at f-structure for ease of exposition. I assume along with Ramchand that objects come in two differing general varieties: those that contribute a semantics to the compositional semantic interpretation of the clause and those that do not (aspectually inert). These are taken to correspond to [+r] (OBJS) and [—r] (OBJ), respectively. Note, however, that it is not the thematic roles themselves which contribute the semantics of the object. Rather, the [+r] of a semantically restricted OEJO simply indicates that this is an object which may enter into the compositional semantics of the clause. The precise semantic interpretation of the clause is not represented at a-structure, or f-structure, but at s(emantic)-structure (see Halvorsen, 1983, or Dalrymple et al., 1993, for some proposals on the representation of semantics in LFG) and the interaction between argument structure, the syntactic realization of arguments, and the interpretation at s-structure is modeled through LFG's projection architecture. A simple example of a contrast is given in (44) and (45). (44)
Yassin ate an apple.
(45) a-structure EAT Default GF
(46)
Yassin ate apples.
(47) a-structure EAT Default GF
In both cases the theme could carry either a [+r] or [—r] feature. However, only one of the feature realizations can lead to a well-formed semantic interpretation: in the atelic case in (47) it is the OBJ; in the telic sentence in (45) it is the OBJe.
Constraining Argument Merger
103
7. AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OF CAUSATIVES At this point, the necessary ingredients are in place for an analysis of the Urdu causative that is also in keeping with restrictive theory of complex predicate formation. With Alsina and Joshi (1991), I assume both the three place and two place predicate for causatives shown in (48):
(48) a. CAUSE < ag th PRED < ag... > > b. CAUSE < ag PRED < ... > >
The two place causative conies into play when the causer does not act upon somebody to cause an event, as in a three place causative, but initiates the action directly.22 In (48a) Argument Fusion applies and must obey the principle in (34) so that only the highest embedded argument fuses with the lowest matrix argument. The linking from arguments to grammatical functions obeys the revised intrinsic classifications outlined in section 6.4.3. The realization of a given argument as a given grammatical function must ultimately be compatible with the aspectual interpretation of the clause. This interaction can be taken to explain the interesting alternation observed between the causee as object or oblique for certain transitives in Urdu and avoids both a stipulative reference to affectedness at a-structure, and the concomitant assumption of parameters on Argument Fusion. (49) Object Causee anjum = ne saddaf — ko masaalaa Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Acc spice.M = Nom cakh-va-yaa taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had Saddaf taste the seasoning.'
(50) a-structure CAUSE Default
GF Case
104 (51)
Miriam Butt
Oblique Causee anjum = ne saddaf — se masaalaa( = ko) Anjum.F = Erg Saddaf.F = Inst spice.M = Nom( = Ace) cakh-va-yaa taste-Caus-Perf.M.Sg 'Anjum had the seasoning tasted by Saddaf.'
(52) (52) a-structure CAUSE Default
GF Case
Case marking in Urdu interacts with semantic interpretation as well. As shown in Butt (1993b), the accusative ko marks specific objects in Urdu. Being specific, these objects are semantically restricted and must be realized as OBJ0, else semantic interpretation at the clause level will be ill-formed.23 Nominatives in Urdu are compatible with either a specific or nonspecific interpretation. In (50) there are two linking possibilities for both of the themes. However, only one of these possibilities is ultimately compatible with the necessary semantic aspectual interpretation of the clause, and only that possibility is compatible with the case marking on the objects: the causee must be realized as an accusative OBJe and hence become eligible to be interpreted as the affected object of the clause. This leaves the 'spice' to be linked to OBJ. In (52), on the other hand, the causee does not enter the aspectual semantics, and is realized as an oblique. This leaves the 'spice' to be realized either as an OBJ or an OBJ0, depending on the aspectual interpretation (if the 'spice' is to be considered affected, it must be realized as an OBJ0). Thus the alternation in the case marking on causees and the interaction with the notion of "affectedness" now follows. In (50), but not in (52), the causee interacts with the aspectual semantics of the clause. The other cases in the causative data presented above also follow as simply from Argument Fusion, the three place causative, and the interaction of aspect and argument structure. In particular, the class of "ingestives" always
Constraining Argument Merger
105
requires an accusative direct object causee because the causee there has no option of being other than affected by the matter that is ingested.
8. PASSIVES AND UNSPECIFIED OBJECTS The above discussion should have demonstrated very clearly that I do not take OBJ and OEJ0 to differ in terms of syntax. Along with Alsina (1993), who abolishes the distinction at f-structure, I take the two types of objects to have the same general syntactic properties. There is, however, one area where the two types of objects have traditionally been taken to differ: [+r] objects (OBJ0) are precluded from undergoing passivization, since these could never be linked to a subject ([—r, — o]). The question which arises is whether the current proposal with respect to OBJ vs OBJe makes the prediction that only clauses containing an OBJ, but not an OBJe can be passivized. This is by no means the case. Passivization with the advent of Linking Theory no longer applies directly to grammatical functions, but to the highest argument at a-structure. This argument is simply suppressed. (53) Passive
Given that most themes will always have either the [—r] or the [+r] option for linking, if passivization applies, it can only apply felicitously to the [ —r] option. Given that the theme argument in this case is not linked to an object, and thus cannot enter aspectual semantics as an object, it is only logical that the [+r] option should never be chosen. The interaction of subjects (external arguments) with aspectual semantics must also be taken into account, but is beyond the scope of this paper (see Ramchand, 1997, for a discussion).24 Finally, the distinction drawn here between OBJ and OBJ0 may be useful in terms of the unspecified object deletion observed for Bantu in Alsina and Mchombo (1993), which was accounted for by (54): (54)
Theme Suppression
106
Miriam Butt
The observation that unspecified objects may be optional follows in my account simply from the idea that OBJ, as opposed to OBJ^, is nonspecific because it is aspectually inert, i.e., does not carry any semantic aspectual information with it which may enter into the compositional semantics of the clause. Thus, in parallel with the affectedness effects observed for causatives, the deeper semantic explanation needed for unspecified object deletion is squarely placed at the level of representation most suited to encode it: s(emantic)-structure. At a-structure and f-structure the option between two differing types of objects is merely made available, but not evaluated.
9. CONCLUSION The analysis of Urdu causatives presented here takes a step beyond the original insights formulated on the basis of Clause Union. For one, the analysis is in keeping with a restrictive theory of complex predicates in which the pertinent characteristics of a complex predicate are very clearly defined, and in which restrictions on argument structure composition parallel the restrictions found for syntactic control and raising constructions. The clear formulation of a theory of complex predicates also provides a firm basis for the investigation of similar constructions cross-linguistically, and for a comparison to other constructions, such as applicatives and serial verbs, which involve argument structure processes, but differ in their overall event structure. The recognition of argument structure as a syntactic level of representation in conjunction with a consideration of aspectual semantics has allowed an alternative view of mapping and linking. In this approach, it is not attempted to code semantic notions such as affectedness or (non)specificity at the already semantically incoherent level of argument structure. Rather, semantic interpretation of a clause is taken to be represented at s(emantic)-structure, and an interaction between semantics and the differing linking possibilities for objects is defined. The encoding of semantic notions at the level where they can be most usefully dealt with, at s-structure, allows a clearer analysis of case alternations on causees, as observed in Urdu causatives. In particular, a very constrained version of Argument Fusion can now apply within a larger theory of complex predicate formation, and allows a principled reformulation or loosening of statements such as Function-Argument Biuniqueness or the Theta Criterion, whose strict requirements on a one-to-one correspondence between
Constraining Argument Merger
107
predicate-argument structure and the syntactic realization of arguments do not allow a lucid treatment of complex predication.
NOTES 1
I particularly thank Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, Mary Dalrymple, Tracy King, Gillian Ramchand, and members of the LFG-list for many interesting discussions and input, Tilman Hohle and Dieter Wunderlich for asking skeptical stimulating questions, and two anonymous reviewers for further helpful comments and criticisms. 2 See also Evers (1975) for an analysis of German coherent constructions in terms of Clause Union within an early transformational approach. 3 The South Asian language Urdu is closely related to Hindi, which is mostly spoken in India. In this paper, the data are primarily drawn from the dialect of Urdu spoken in Lahore, Pakistan, and that of Hindi-speaking informants from New Delhi, India. 4 Contrary to a reviewer's comment that stipulations about transitivity may be needed in all argument structure approaches, the analysis proposed by Alsina (1993) involving argument fusion and LFG's linking theory overcomes a number of disadvantages of previous approaches and does not need to stipulate anything special for transitive vs intransitive embedded predicates (see section 2.4). It is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize the rather extensive and detailed argumentation of Alsina (1993, 1996); however, I should note that examples in which intransitive vs transitive versions of the same verb, e.g., manger 'eat,' are embedded under a causative by no means present a counterexample to an argument structure approach. There is nothing inherent in the argument structure approach which prevents one from modeling optionally intransitive predicates at argument structure. As will become clear in the section on aspect, I do not subscribe to the view that argument roles enter directly into a process in which semantic entailments are calculated. Argument structure under the view presented in this paper is very much a syntactic level of representation. 5 Alsina (1995) goes even further and proposes to abolish even this unidirectional constraint based on data from Catalan reflexives, but this more extreme position is not taken in this paper. Note that the RG approach does not constitute an instance of Argument Fusion because there is no instance in which a given argument is introduced by more than one predicate. Contrary to a reviewer's reading of (3), despite the fact that las herramientas 'tools' in (2) ends up being represented as the 2-argument of the complex predicate, it is only introduced to the unified clause by the embedded predicate, not by the causative hacer 'make.' This is in marked contrast to the three place causative adopted by Alsina. 7 Abbreviations used are as follows: F = feminine; M = masculine; Erg = ergative; Nom = nominative; Gen = genitive; Dat = dative; Ace = accusative;
108
Miriam Butt
Inst = instrumental; Loc = locative; Inf = infinitive; Obl = oblique; Perf = perfect; Impf = imperfect; Stat = stative; Pron = pronoun; Sg = singular; P1 = plural. A "-" indicates a morpheme boundary, while an " = " separates a clitic from a lexical item. 8 The nominative case marker in Urdu is phonologically null. 9 For details on infinitive agreement see Butt (1993a, b). Infinitives generally involve what appears to be "long-distance agreement," but which must actually be analyzed as an instance of successive local agreement. The agreement facts of the Permissive cannot be analyzed similarly. 10 The f-structure is abbreviated in that it displays only some basic information. A complete f-structure would list values for number, case, gender, tense, etc. n See section 3.3 on why the second argument of the Permissive is rendered as a goal in (13). 12 It appears that in the grammar of modern speakers, the "causativized" form in the (b) examples is actually not registered as such: the complex predicates have been reanalyzed as simple transitives (see also Saksena, 1982b, on the lexicalization of such forms). 13 Note that the passive English gloss given for (20) is not entirely accurate: the ban in fact has no passive interpretation, as is illustrated by the German gloss. An English analog is a verb such as appear. 14 The examples presented here are all past tense, realized through "perfective" morphology. Urdu is a split-ergative language in which the ergative is roughly correlated with unergatives, transitivity, and perfective morphology. 15 For recent reformulations of the linking theory along the lines of Dowty's (1991) protoroles, see Alsina (1993, 1996) and Zaenen (1993). 16 But see Frank (1996) for an alternative view, where argument structure composition of syntactically independent items is carried out within a version of the lexicon that is taken to emcompass more than the encoding of lexical and sublexical properties. 17 A goal in Urdu as inherently classified as [ +0], unless it appears as the highest argument. In the latter case it is marked as [ —o]. This allows a mapping to subject in experiencer constructions, and an object argument in ditransitives. 18 Note that in (38) the object masaalaa 'spice' may alternate between nominative and accusative case. If it is marked with the accusative ko, the spice must be interpreted as "affected" and is incompatible with the durative adverbial. In (37) the object 'spice' may not be subject to such alternation since there is a restriction in Urdu/Hindi against more than one ko marked object per clause (T. Mohanan, 1994b). 19 Dowty is, of course, not the only one to express the general unhappiness with thematic roles. Other succint, recent discussions include (but are not limited to) Grimshaw (1990), Jackendoff (1990), and the collection of papers in Butt and Geuder (to appear). 20 Roles for external arguments are defined as well, but go beyond the scope of this paper.
Constraining Argument Merger
109
21
The examples are taken from Ramchand (1997:93-94). The abbreviation Dir stands for "direct case," OAgr for "object agreement," and Asp for "aspectual marker." The latter is my gloss. 22 The assumption of a two place causative is not necessary for an analysis of the Urdu causative paradigm presented in section 4. However, it may be needed for Romance examples such as les dieux peuvent faire pleuvoir 'The gods can make it rain' brought up by one of the anonymous reviewers. 23 Also compare van Geenhoven (1995, 1996) on an analysis of Noun Incorporation in Germanic and West Greenlandic, who proposes a semantic distinction between two differing kinds of objects which is very reminiscent of the distinction proposed by Ramchand, but addresses the issue of specificity in much greater detail than can be found in Ramchand (1997). 24 Note that no predictions are made here with regard to the interaction of passivization and causatives. Passivization of a causative is not possible in Urdu, but this may be due to independent morphosyntactic factors, as it does appear to be possible in languages like Japanese and Inuit as an anonymous reviewer pointed out.
REFERENCES Aissen, J., and D. Perlmutter (1983). Clause reduction in Spanish. In D. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar, Vol. 1, 360-403. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Alsina, A. (1992). On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4), 517-555. Alsina, A. (1993). Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Alsina, A. (1995). The Fall of Function-Argument Biuniqueness. In G. V. Morrill and R. T. Oehrle (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference of the European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Barcelona. Alsina, A. (1996). The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Alsina, A., and S. Joshi (1991). Parameters in causative constructions. In L. Dobrin, L. Nichols, and R. M. Rodriguez (eds.), Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1-16. Alsina, A., and S. Mchombo (1993). Object Asymmetries and Chichewa Applicative Construction. In S. Mchombo (ed.) Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Baker, M. (1989). Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 513-553.
110
Miriam Butt
Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Bresnan, J., and J. Kanerva (1989). Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1-50. Bresnan, J., and L. Moshi (1990). Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147-185. Bresnan, J., and A. Zaenen. (1990). Deep Unaccusativity in LFG. In K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell, and E. Mejias-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A CrossTheoretical Perspective. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Butt, M. (1993a). A Reanalysis of long distance agreement in Urdu. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. Butt, M. (1993b). Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. In Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Vol. 1, 80-103. Butt, M. (1994). Complex predicate scrambling in Urdu. In M. Butt, T. King, and G. Ramchand (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Butt, M. (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Butt, M., and W. Geuder (eds.) (to appear). Argument Projection: Lexical and Compositional Constraints. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Dalrymple, M., J. Lamping, and V. Saraswat (1993). LFG semantics via constraints. In Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Davies, W., and C. Rosen (1988). Unions as multi-predicate clauses. Language 64, 52-CC 52-88.
de Hoop, H. (1992). Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3), 547-619. Durie, M. (1993). Grammatical structures in verb serialization: Some preliminary proposals. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, and P. Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. To appear. Evers, A. (1975). The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht. (Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.) Frank, A. (1996). A note on complex predicate formation: Evidence from auxiliary selection, reflexivization, and past participle agreement in French and Italian. In M. Butt and T. King (eds.), Proceedings from the First LFG Conference, 174-189. RXRC, Grenoble, France. Gibson, J., and E. Raposo (1986). Clause union, the stratal uniqueness law and the Chomeur relation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 295-331. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Constraining Argument Merger
111
Grimshaw, J., and A. Mester (1988). Light verbs and 0-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2), 205-232. Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, 53-109. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Halvorsen, P.-K. (1983). Semantics for Lexical-Functional Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 14(4), 567-615. Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1990). Subcategorization and VP structure in German. In Huges, Schaun, and Salmons (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Germanic Linguistics. Benjamins, John Amsterdam. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Jespersen, O. (1954). A Modem English Grammar on Historical Principles. Allen and Unwin, London. Kachru, Y. (1980). Aspects of Hindi Grammar. Manohar Publications, New Delhi. Kaplan, R. (1995). The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. In M. Dalrymple, R. Kaplan, J. Maxwell III, and A. Zaenen (eds.), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 7-27. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kaplan, R., and J. Bresnan (1995). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In M. Dalrymple, R. Kaplan, J. Maxwell III, and A. Zaenen (eds.), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 29-130. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kaplan, R., and J. Wedekind (1993). Restriction and correspondence-based translation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics. University of Utrecht. Kiparsky, P. (1987). Morphology and grammatical relations. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical Matters, 29-53. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Li, Y. (1995). Chinese resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 255-282. Manning, C. (1992). Romance is so complex. Technical Report CSLI-92-168. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Manning, C. (1995). Valency versus binding: On the distinctness of argument structure. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University. Manning, C. D., and I. A. Sag. (1998). Dissociations between argument structure and grammatical relations. In G. Webelhuth, A. Kathol, and I-P. Koening (eds.), Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. To appear. Marantz, A. (1984), On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Masica, C. (1991). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
112
Miriam Butt
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). A syntactic account of light verb phenomena in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 107-149. Mohanan, K. P., and T. Mohanan (1990). Dative subjects in Malayalam: Semantic information in the syntax. In M. K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Mohanan, T. (1988). Causativization in Malayalam. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Mohanan, T. (1994a). Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Mohanan, T. (1994b). Case OCP: A constraint on word order in Hindi. In M. Butt, T. King, and G. Ramchand (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Monachesi, P. (1995). A Grammar of Italian Clitics. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University. Neeleman, A. (1994). Complex Predicates. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University. Rambow, O. (1996). Word order, clause union, and the formal machinery of syntax. In M. Butt and T. King (eds.), Proceedings from the First LFG Conference, 366-374. RXRC, Grenoble, France. Ramchand, G. (1997). Aspect and Predication: The Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ritter, E., and S. Rosen (1993). Deriving causation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 519-555. Rosen, S. (1989). Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University. Saksena, A. (1980). The affected agent. Language 56(4), 812-826. Saksena, A. (1982a). Case marking semantics. Lingua 56, 335-343. Saksena. A. (1982b). Topics in the analysis of causatives with an account of Hindi paradigms. Linguistics 98. University of California Press, Los Angeles. Sells, P. (1993). The Projection of Phrase Structure and Argument Structure in Japanese. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. van Geenhoven, V. (1995). Semantic incorporation: A uniform semantics for West Greenlandic noun incorporation and West Germanic bare plural configurations. In Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. To appear. van Geenhoven, V. (1996). Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Tubingen. (SfS-Report-03-96.)
Constraining Argument Merger
113
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Verkuyl, H. (1972). On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Reidel, Dordrecht. Verkuyl, H. (1993). A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203-238. Zaenen, A. (1993). Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 129-161. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
This page intentionally left blank
THIRD CONSTRUCTION AND VP EXTRAPOSITION IN GERMAN: AN HPSG ANALYSIS ERHARD W. HINRICHS* TSUNEKO NAKAZAWA *Seminarfur Sprachwissenschaft Universitdt Tubingen Tubingen, Germany Language and Information Sciences University of Tokyo Tokyo, Japan
1. INTRODUCTION
The term THIRD CONSTRUCTION has been coined by den Besten and Rutten (1989) to refer to a syntactic configuration in which subject-control verbs in Dutch split their VP complements as in (Ib): (1) a. ...dat zij
that '... that b. ...dat that '... that
waagden de vergadering te verstoren.
they dared the meaning to disturb they dared to disturb the meeting' zij de vergadering waagden te verstoren. they the meeting dared to disturb they dared to disturb the meeting'
Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderiuational Syntax
115
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
116
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
Unlike ordinary VP extraposition, which extraposes a VP as a whole as in (la), in the third construction the subject-control verb waagden appears between the NP de vergadering and the extraposed verb te verstoren. As noted by a variety of authors, including Santorini and Kroch (1990), GeilfuB (1991), Haider (1993), Rambow (1994), and Wollstein-Leisten (1994), this third construction can also be found in German, at least in spoken language.1 (2) a. ... daft er versucht hat das Auto zu reparieren. that he tried has the car to repair '.. .that he tried to repair the car' b. ... daft er das Auto versucht hat zu reparieren. that he the car tried has to repair '... that he tried to repair the car' One reasonable hypothesis to pursue is to regard the third construction, as exemplified in (2b), as a special case of extraposition of full VPS. This is the position taken by den Besten and Rutten (1989), who argue for a derivational analysis of the third construction in Dutch. They suggest that this construction involves extraposition of a full VP from which an NP is scrambled to the left of the finite verb. Uszkoreit (1987) presents a similar analysis in a nonderivational framework where the scrambled NP is considered to be the extracted filler of the gap contained in an extraposed VP. This question whether the third construction is a special case of extraposition of full VPS can only be answered once a syntactic analysis of VP extraposition has been put in place that is justified on independent grounds. Therefore, we will first present an analysis of full VP extraposition before we present an analysis of the third construction itself. Full VP extraposition has been identified by Bech (1955) as one of the tests that are characteristic of what he calls INCOHERENT INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS. In order to give an account of VP extraposition, we therefore need to embed this account in a general treatment of such incoherent constructions.
2. INCOHERENT INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN GERMAN In an incoherent infinitive construction, the verb governed by a control verb forms a VP constituent with its objects. This constituenthood of the VP complement of such a control verb can be demonstrated by a variety of syntactic constructions.
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
117
Apart from VP extraposition, incoherent infinitive constructions allow VP relatives as in (3a), and topicalization of VP complements as in (3b): (3) a. Das ist das Auto, das zu kaufen er Peter uberreden wird. that is the car which to buy he Peter persuade will 'That is the car which he will persuade Peter to buy.' b. Das Auto zu kaufen wird Peter Maria Uberreden. the car to buy will Peter Maria persuade 'Peter will persuade Maria to buy the car.' In the relative clause in (3 a) the embedded verb zu kaufen is fronted together with its object NP that is realized as the relative pronoun das? In (3b) the embedded VP das Auto zu kaufen appears in clause-initial topicalized position. On the other hand, incoherent infinitive constructions do not allow auxiliary flip, as in (4a), and scrambling of complements out of the embedded VP, as in (5a): (4) a. * ... dafl er Peter das Auto wird zu kaufen uberreden konnen. that he Peter the car will to buy persuade can '(intended)... that he will be able to persuade Peter to buy the car' b. ... daft er das Auto wird kaufen konnen. that he the car will buy can '... that he will be able to buy the car' (5) a. * ... daft er das Auto Peter zu kaufen uberreden wird. that he the car Peter to buy persuade will '(intended)... that he will be persuade Peter to buy the car' b. ... dafl er das Auto Peter kaufen sehen wird. that he the car Peter buy see will ' ... that he will be see Peter buy the car' Auxiliary flip is triggered by a small set of infinitival forms, including konnen, and places its governing verb, wird in (4b), as the leftmost verbal element in the verbal cluster. However, in the case of an incoherent construction, as in (4a), the fronted auxiliary may not intervene between the elements of the embedded VP das Auto zu kaufen. Likewise, the object NP das Auto in (5a) cannot participate in the scrambling of arguments in the German MITTELFELD of the kind exemplified in (5b). If in incoherent infinitive constructions the verb governed by a control verb forms a VP constituent with its objects, the behavior with respect to auxiliary flip and scrambling should come as no surprise since these constructions cause the embedded VP to split up into discontinuous parts. Given this general behavior, the existence of the third construction among verbs that undergo full VP extraposition is indeed surprising, since
118
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
the third construction does precisely what scrambling and auxiliary flip are not allowed to do, namely, to split up the embedded VP. This anomalous behavior should cast some initial doubt on the hypothesis that the third construction is a special case of full VP extraposition.
3. VP EXTRAPOSITION
As we mentioned in the Introduction, the question whether the third construction can be regarded as a special case of extraposition of full VPS, can only be answered once a syntactic analysis of VP extraposition has been put in place. In this section we therefore present an analysis of full VP extraposition before we propose an analysis of the third construction itself. VP extraposition, VP relatives, and the lack of scrambling and auxiliary flip all attest to the constituenthood of the embedded VP in an incoherent infinitive construction. For simple cases such as (6) the constituent structure in (7), therefore, suggests itself:3 (6)
... dafi Peter Maria iiberredet, das Auto zu kaufen. that Peter Maria persuade the car to buy '... that Peter persuades Maria to buy the car'
(7)
The lexical entry for the control verb iiberreden which governs the embedded VP is shown in (8):4 (8) (Preliminary Version)
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
119
Notice that, in flat structures such as (7), VP extraposition can be treated in terms of ordering constraints vis-a-vis its sisters; i.e., no extraction seems to be required. The correct linearization will be effected by some binary feature, e.g., EXTRAP. A VP complement that carries the value [EXTRAP + ], such as das Auto zu kaufen in (7), will be extraposed. We will defer the presentation of the necessary LP rules until section 8. So far we have only considered a simple case of VP extraposition. Next, we consider more complicated examples and show that they can be treated without movement as well. The following example (9) shows a case of double VP extraposition. In the extraposed VP Karl zu zwingen, das Auto zu kaufen, the VP das Auto zu kaufen which is embedded under zwingen is itself extraposed. (9)
... daft Peter Maria iiberredet, Karl zu zwingen. that Peter Maria persuaded Karl to force das Auto zu kaufen. the car to buy '... that Peter persuaded Maria to force Karl to buy the car'
Notice that such cases of multiple VP extraposition can be handled purely in terms of ordering constraints, as the constituent structure in (10) for (9) shows:
(10)
In (10) the VP which dominates the entire extraposed material is an immediate daughter of the clause and can therefore be ordered vis-a-vis its clausal sisters. The extraposed VP itself has a ternary structure with another VP that can be ordered in the desired fashion with respect to its sisters.
120
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
Another class of examples to consider are sentences in which a control verb is embedded under one or more auxiliaries as shown in (11): (11)
... daft Peter Maria uberredet haben wird, das Auto zu kaufen. that Peter Maria persuade have will the car to buy '... that Peter will have persuaded Maria to buy the car'
At first glance examples such as (11) seem to strongly suggest that VP extraposition requires movement, or in HPSG terms employment of a SLASH mechanism. The control verb uberredet appears embedded under the auxiliaries haben and wird so that the VP embedded under uberredet seems to be the most deeply embedded constituent. The only way to extrapose this VP seems to be in terms of adjunction to the clause. Whether or not VP extraposition requires extraction when a control verb is embedded under one or more auxiliaries crucially depends on the kind of analysis that is given to auxiliaries. Following the work of Bech (1955), auxiliaries can be categorized as typical examples of what Bech calls COHERENT INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS. Bech shows that coherent infinitive constructions differ systematically from incoherent constructions with respect to the syntactic constructions of auxiliary slip, scrambling, and VP relativization that we discussed in section 2. While incoherent infinitive constructions do not allow auxiliary flip and scrambling, coherent constructions do as examples (12) show: (12) a. .. .dafi Peter es wird lesen konnen. that Peter it will read be able to '... that Peter will be able to read it' b. ... daB es Peter lesen konnen wird. that it Peter read be able to will '... that Peter will be able to read it.' In (12a) the finite auxiliary wird is flipped in front of the main verb, while in (12b) the object NP es is scrambled relative to the subject NP Peter. On the other hand, coherent infinitive constructions do not allow VP relativization as the ungrammatical (13) shows: (13) *Das ist das Buch das lesen Peter konnen wird. that is the book which read Peter be able will '(intended) That is the book which Peter will be able to read.' What this syntactic behavior seems to suggest is that in coherent infinitive constructions in general and for auxiliaries in particular there is no embedded VP constituent.5 Instead, the object arguments of the embedded verb are raised to the clause level. In previous work (Hinrichs and
Third Construction and vp Extraposition
121
Nakazawa, 1994b and to appear) we have accounted for this "verb raising" phenomenon by assigning the syntactic structure in (14) to (12b):6
(14)
The raising of the NP complement es is accomplished by the operation of argument composition that is encoded in the lexical entry of auxiliaries as shown in (15) (see Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1989, 1993, 1994a, for details):7 (15) (Preliminary Version)
Notice that as a result of argument composition, the NP complement appears as an immediate daughter of the clause, where it can then be scrambled by linearization rules. The notion of a verbal complex or verbal cluster for the analysis of coherent infinitive constructions in Dutch and German was first introduced into generative grammar by Evers (1975). However, apart from the fact that his analysis is couched in transformational terms, there are considerable differences between his account and ours. While we use the lexical notion of argument composition to raise nonverbal arguments into the Mittelfeld, Evers employs a movement transformation of "verb raising" to form a verbal cluster. Evers assumes an underlying structure for clauses such as daft es Peter lesen wird 'that Peter will read it' in which wird
122
E.W. Hinrichs and T.Nakazawa
subcategorizes for a sentential complement Peter es lesen. The embedded verb is then raised out of the embedded clause to form a verbal cluster with the auxiliary. It is also worth noting that Evers treats only coherent infinitive constructions and VP extraposition, but offers no account of the third construction. The alert reader may wonder whether the structure in (14) is the only one admitted. It appears that nothing in the lexical entry in (15) requires that argument raising is obligatory. In our analysis, the obligatory nature of argument raising can be derived from the feature NPCOMP which appears in the lexical entry for auxiliaries. We will explain these points more fully in section 6. Analogously to the raising of NP complements, auxiliaries can also raise VP complements so that we can derive the structure in (16) for cases of VP extraposition examples such as (11):
The VP complement in (16) appears as an immediate daughter of the clause, so that it can be extraposed by linearization rules.' The treatment of VP extraposition as reordering and not movement is a natural extension of the analysis of coherent infinitive constructions that we have independently motivated in previous work (Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1989, 1993, and 1994a19 The linearization account of VP extraposition is also in keeping with the general strategy followed by nonderivational theories of grammar, namely, to employ the SLASH mechanism only when a nonmovement analysis is not possible.
4. THIRD CONSTRUCTION AS A SPECIAL CASE OF VP EXTRAPOSITION Let us return now to the question that we asked at the outset, namely, whether the third construction can be treated as a special case of VP extraposition. In light of our linearization analysis of VP extraposition, this
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
123
question boils down to whether we can generalize this linearization account to cover the third construction as well. We will argue that this is, in fact, possible and that the third construction requires no extraction. In addition, we will show that such a linearization account of the third construction can be based on the notion of argument composition, which is needed independently for coherent verbs. It is worth noting that those verbs that introduce the third construction appear in certain incoherent constructions as well. They admit VP relatives as in (17) and extraposition of full VPS as in (18): (17) Das ist das Buck das zu lesen Peter versuchen wird. that is the book which to read Peter try will 'That is the book which Peter will try to read.' (18)
.. .daft er versucht hat das Auto zu reparieren. that he tried has the car to repair '... that he tried to repair the car'
In order to account for these incoherence properties, we have to assume that verbs such as versuchen subcategorize for a full VP just like uberreden in (8). Next let us consider once more our earlier example of the third construction (2b), repeated here as (19): (19)
... daft er das Auto versucht hat zu reparieren. that he the car tried has to repair '... that he tried to repair the car'
Observationally speaking, the third construction splits the NP das Auto and the infinitive zu reparieren which are embedded under versuchen into discontinuous parts. We propose to analyze this by the Third Construction Lexical Rule shown in (20):
(20) Third Construction Lexical Rule (preliminary version)
124
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
The lexical rule substitutes the VP embedded under a control verb by a COMPS list that is composed of a verb and its subcategorized complements. The rule in a sense liberates the constituents of the embedded VP in the input structure and makes them immediate complements of the upstairs verb in the output structure. If the subject-control verb versuchen undergoes the lexical rule in (20), then the subordinate clause in (19) will be assigned the constituent structure in (21). For reasons to be explained shortly, the rule applies only to subject-control equi verbs without an overt object, i.e., to control verbs which have a VP as the only element on the COMPS list.
(21)
Since versuchen is embedded under the coherent verb hat, the complements of versuchen are raised to the clause level where they can be ordered by appropriate linearization rules. The lexical rule is formulated in such a way that it applies to all subject-control equi verbs without an overt object. The third construction, however, is known to be licensed by other kinds of verbs as well, including those listed in (22). The third construction seems to be productive for subject-control equi verbs without object as listed in (22a), for the subjectcontrol equi verbs in (22b) if their optional dative objects are not realized,
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
125
for phase verbs in (22c), and for object-control equi verbs with dative (rather than accusative) controller in (22d): (22) Third Construction Triggering Verbs a. subject-control equi verbs without object: uersuchen 'try'; glauben 'believe'; vergessen 'forget'; wagen 'dare'; vermogen 'be capable of; meinen 'think'; behaupten 'maintain'; vorhaben 'intend'; zugeben 'admit'; hoffen 'hope'; versaumen 'fail' b. subject-control equi verbs with optional dative object: versprechen 'promise'; drohen 'threaten'; zusichern 'assure'; schworen 'swear' c. phase verbs (subject-control raising verbs): anfangen 'start'; aufhoren 'stop'; beginnen 'begin' d. object-control equi verbs with dative controller: (Bayer and Kornfilt, 1990:38) empfehlen 'recommend'; befehlen 'order'; nahelegen 'suggest'; uerbieten 'forbid'; untersagen 'forbid'; gestatten 'allow'; bedeuten 'indicate'; freistellen 'leave'; zutrauen 'believe'; gebieten 'demand' For the group in (22b) the grammaticality judgments seem to vary from verb to verb, if the optional dative object is realized. For example, while versprechen seems to allow the third construction even with an overt dative object, drohen does not: (23) a.
... daft ich Peter den Brief versprochen habe abzuschicken. that I Peter the letter promised have to send '... that I have promised Peter to send the letter' b. ?* ... daft ich Peter den Brief gedroht habe abzuschicken. that I Peter the letter threatened have to send '(intended)... that I have threatened Peter to send the letter'
All object-control equi verbs listed in (22d) take a dative controller as pointed out by Bayer and Kornfilt (1990). For some reason unknown to us, object-control equi verbs do not trigger the third construction if they subcategorize for an accusative NP, as the contrast between (24a) and (24b) illustrates: (24) a.
.. .dafl sie dem Studenten das Buch geraten hat zu lesen. that she the-DAT student the book advised has to read '(intended) 'that she has advised the student to read the book' b. * .. .daft sie den Studenten das Buch gezwungen hat zu lesen. that she the-ACC student the book forced has to read '(intended)... that she has forced the student to read the book'
126
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
Furthermore, not all object-control equi verbs with a dative controller allow for the third construction as shown in the ungrammatical example in (25): (25) * .. .daB sie dem Studenten das Buck nachgesehen hat zu lesen. that she the-DAT student the book forgiven has to read '(intended)... that she has forgiven the student for reading the book' The somewhat idiosyncratic nature of the third construction raises the question whether one should propose a lexical rule for this construction or whether one should simply posit two lexical entries for third construction triggering verbs: i.e., one entry of the sort shown in (8) for the incoherent construction and a second one which looks like the output of the lexical rule (20). The reason we have chosen the lexical rule approach here is that it does seem to capture the productive nature of the third construction with respect to the verbs listed in (22a). However, even with the lexical rule in place, additional lexical entries have to be stipulated for subject-control equi verbs in (22b) which allow the third construction with an overt dative NP, phase verbs in (22c), and object-control equi verbs in (22d).10 The output of the lexical rule looks surprisingly similar to the lexical entries that we have already proposed for control verbs which license coherent structures, e.g., the lexical entry for konnen in (15). We noted that the lexical entries of those verbs encode argument composition with the embedded verb. In the output structure of the lexical rule (20) the same type of composition is encoded. There are some minor differences between the two types of lexical entries. In the case of coherent structures, the verbal complement may not be extraposed and is marked as [EXTRAP - ]. Also the governed verb can be a base infinitive or a zu -infinitive. Third construction triggering verbs, on the other hand, select only zu -infinitives.11 But apart from some minor differences we find it significant that the same type of operation can be used in both cases. A difference between the coherent constructions and the third construction which is not apparent from the output of the Third Construction Lexical Rule (20) is the positioning of the governed verb. In the case of coherent constructions, the governed verb forms part of the verbal complex and cannot be raised. In the case of the third construction, the governed verb can be and will, in fact, be forced to be raised and extraposed. The question of what makes the raising of extraposed verbs obligatory will be answered in some detail in section 6. We will now turn to more complex cases of the third construction where this construction interacts with one or more coherent or incoherent
Third Construction and vp Extraposition
127
constructions in the same sentence. We will show that our linearization analysis of the third construction can account for these more complex cases as well. In examples such as (26) the extraposed verbal constituent in the third construction is complex and contains one or more control verbs which license coherent constructions: (26) a. .. .daB that '... that b. .. .daft that '... that
er das Auto meint reparieren zu durfen. he the car thinks repair to be allowed he thinks that he is allowed to repair the car' er das Auto meint repariert haben zu durfen. he the car thinks repair have to be allowed he thinks that he is allowed to have repaired the car'
The constituent structure that our analysis admits for (26b) is shown in (27):
(27)
(27) shows that the extraposed verbal constituent forms a structured verbal complex which as a whole appears as a daughter of the clause and can therefore be ordered by an appropriate linearization statement. In general, what can be extraposed in the third construction is any lexical zw-infinitive or any coherent construction, i.e., a single verbal complex. However, incoherent constructions, i.e., complex verbal categories which contain an embedded VP, as in (28), are not permissible: (28)
* ... daft ich Maria vergessen habe zu versprechen that I Maria forgotten have to promise das Auto zu reparieren. the car to repair '(intended)... that I have forgotten to promise Maria to repair the car'
128
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
If (28) were grammatical, then uergessen would have to be in the third construction. The NP complement Maria of the embedded verb versprechen would, hence, be missing from the extraposed verbal category. The extraposed verbal category itself represents an incoherent construction since it contains the extraposed VP complement das Auto zu reparieren. Hence, (28) violates the empirical restriction observable about the third construction, namely, that the extraposed verbal category can only be complex if it constitutes a coherent construction. Next we will consider cases in which the third construction interacts with full VP extraposition in the same sentence. We will see that the third construction may be embedded under an extraposed full VP as in (29), and that the linearization account that we would like to propose for both constructions can still be upheld. (29)
... daft ich Maria uberreden mufi das Fahrrad that I Maria persuade must the bicycle zu versuchen zu reparieren. to try to repair '... that I must persuade Maria to try to repair the bicycle'
The constituent structure for (29) that the linearization account would predict is shown in (30): (30)
In (30), the VP das Fahrrad zu versuchen zu reparieren constitutes extraposition of a full VP, and within that VP the Third Construction Lexical Rule has applied to versuchen. When the third construction interacts with full VP extraposition, our analysis also correctly predicts that it is ungrammatical to place a constituent that forms part of the third construction outside the extraposed full VP. In the following two ungrammatical examples, the object NP das Fahrrad, which is involved in the third construction, remains nonextraposed while the rest of the complement of uberreden is extraposed in (3la),
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
129
and the rest of the complement of versuchen is extraposed in (31b): (31) a. * ... daft ich Maria das Fahrrad uberreden muB
that I
Maria the bicycle persuade must
zu versuchen zu reparieren.
to try to repair '(intended)... that I must persuade Maria to try to repair the bicycle' b. * ... daB ich Maria das Fahrrad zu versuchen that I Maria the bicycle to try uberreden muB zu reparieren.
persuade must to repair '(intended)... that I must persuade Maria to try to repair the bicycle' In both examples versuchen appears in the third construction and is supposed to be in the scope of the object-control verb uberreden. Uberreden subcategorizes for a saturated VP as its complement and licenses incoherent constructions. However, in both sentences there is no saturated VP constituent, i.e., das Fahrrad zu versuchen zu reparieren, that could satisfy this subcategorization requirement. Therefore, the sentences in (31) are not admitted. To conclude this section of the paper, we have shown that a linearization approach can account for simple cases of the third construction in German as well as for complex interactions of the third construction with VP extraposition. The linearization approach is not only observationally fully adequate, but it also extends quite naturally our analysis of coherent infinitives that we have proposed previously. Finally, it is important to note that the phenomena of VP extraposition and the third construction are both clause-bound; i.e., they are extrapositions whose domain is a single clause. Since the SLASH extraction mechanism is typically employed for dependencies of unbounded depth, the linearization analysis has to be considered the null hypothesis.
5. DUAL PROPERTIES OF THIRD CONSTRUCTION TRIGGERING VERBS
Additional evidence for treating third construction triggering verbs in terms of argument composition comes from the fact that these verbs exhibit syntactic properties characteristic of coherent infinitive constructions when the governed verb is not extraposed.
130
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
(32)
... daft es Peter zu reparieren versuchen wird. that it Peter to repair try will '... that Peter will try to repair it'
(33)
... dqfi es Peter wird zu reparieren versucht haben. that it Peter will to repair tried have '... that Peter will have tried to repair it'
(32) and (33) illustrate two of the constructions introduced by Bech as tests for coherent infinitive constructions: scrambling and auxiliary flip. In (32) the pronoun es which is the object of reparieren has been scrambled to the left of the subject NP.12 In (33) the finite auxiliary wird is fronted and appears to the left of the verbal complex. These coherence properties can be accounted for in our treatment of third construction triggering verbs since the output of the Third Construction Lexical Rule involves argument composition. What distinguishes the examples in (32) and (33) from the third construction itself is that the ZM-infinitive is not right-dislocated. In our analysis, therefore, such nondislocated infinitives are marked as [EXTRAP — ] and are admitted into the verbal complex in the same way as base infinitives are in the coherent constructions. (34) presents the tree that our analysis assigns to (32): (34)
In (34) es is raised by the control verb versuchen and then by the finite auxiliary wird. As a result, es and the subject NP Peter are sisters at the clause level and can therefore be scrambled. With respect to scrambling in the Mittelfeld, third construction triggering verbs follow the pattern characteristic of coherent infinitive constructions. However, as we have discussed in the previous sections, third construction triggering verbs also exhibit properties characteristic of incoherent infinitive constructions. For example, they allow full VP extraposition, which is Bech's primary test for incoherence. Moreover, third construction triggering verbs parallel the behavior of other control verbs that
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
131
appear in incoherent constructions in that the embedded VP can appear in the Mittelfeld instead of being extraposed.13 (35)
... daB ein solches Buck zu lesen Hans niemals versuchen wurde. that a such book to read Hans never try would '... that Hans would never try to read such a book'
It is important to note that sentences such as (35) cannot be regarded as examples of coherent infinitive constructions, since this would require zu lesen and versuchen to form a constituent in the same way zu reparieren and versuchen form a verbal complex in the coherent structure shown in (34). Rather (35) has to be assigned the structure shown in (36), in which ein solches Buck zu lesen forms a VP:
(36)
This dual behavior of third construction triggering verbs as a licensor of both coherent and incoherent constructions follows immediately from the two types of lexical entries that our analysis assigns to these verbs, i.e., a lexical entry which subcategorizes for a full VP and a second entry, derived by the lexical rule, which raises the arguments of its embedded verbs. On the other hand, verbs which do not trigger the third construction and full VP extraposition, e.g., auxiliaries, appear only in coherent structures. They will be assigned the latter type of entry. Finally, there is the class of verbs, e.g., iiberreden, which only appear in incoherent constructions and are assigned the first type of entry subcategorizing for a full VP.
6. ARGUMENT COMPOSITION, ID SCHEMAS, AND FORCING ARGUMENT RAISING IN THE THIRD CONSTRUCTION
Our linearization account of full VP extraposition and of the third construction requires that the verbal and nominal arguments are discharged at the right level of embedding. This can be accomplished if ID schemas and lexical rules are made sensitive to two features: the feature
132
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
EXTRAP, which marks whether a verbal category is to be extraposed or not, and the feature NPCOMP, which signifies whether or not that node directly or indirectly dominates any NFS. In (37) and (38) we list the two ID schemas that we have been tacitly assuming for German in the previous sections:
(37)
(38)
These ID schemas are similar to the schemas introduced in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b and to appear). The schema in (37) licenses the flat structures of finite verbs and their complements as well as saturated VPS. Following Borsley's proposal for Welsh (Borsley, 1987), we are assuming here, as we did in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b and to appear), that subjects of finite verbs in German appear on the COMPS list, rather than as the value of SUBJ. The Verbal-Complex ID Schema (38) licenses binary structures for the verbal complex, which always contains nonfinite verbs. It allows a coherent construction where a control verb as a head combines with a single verbal complement. The verbal complement is specified to be [EXTRAP — ] by the COMPS value of the control verb as shown in the lexical entry for konnen in (15). This feature specification is present to prohibit a zw-infinitive marked as [EXTRAP + ] from being discharged as the sister of a third construction triggering verb. This in turn means that if such a third construction triggering verb is embedded under a coherent construction, as in (26), the extraposed zw-infinitive is obligatorily raised. As discussed in section 4, this obligatory raising of extraposed zu-infinitives is crucial for our linearization analysis of the third construction.
Third Construction and vp Extraposition
133
The notion of verbal complex predates generative grammar and was described in such terms as KOHAERENZFELD 'coherence field' in Been (1955) and HAUPTVERBKOMPLEX 'main verb complex' in Bierwisch (1963). In our analysis, the notion is captured in terms of the [NPCOMP -] specification on verbal nodes. The Verbal-Complex ID Schema (38) recursively marks the mother and the verbal complement as [NPCOMP — ], and the feature signifies that the verbal constituent contains no NP complements. Note that this feature cannot be reduced to a more familiar feature, e.g., LEX, since the verbal complement marked as [NPCOMP — ] in a verbal complex may consist of only a lexical verb or multiple verbs, i.e., another verbal complex. Nor can it be identified with a nonempty COMPS list since lexical intransitive verbs may appear as a verbal complement in a verbal complex while their COMPS lists are empty. Recall that control verbs which only license coherent constructions subcategorize for verbal complements that are marked as [NPCOMP - ] as shown in lexical entry (15). Since the mother category in the Head-Complement ID Schema is marked as [NPCOMP + ], verbal constituents admitted by this schema can never appear as complements of those verbs which license coherent constructions. This then means that the raising of NP complements to the clause level is obligatory in coherent structures. Likewise the raising of full VP complements forming an incoherent structure is obligatory since such VPS are admitted by the Head-Complement ID Schema and are hence marked as [NPCOMP + ]. If the raising of VP and NP complements to the clause level was not enforced, then these complements could be discharged nondeterministically at any level of embedding within the verbal complex. Such nondeterminism would lead to a multiplicity of structures whose necessity cannot be motivated on independent grounds. The previous sections have shown that the linearization approach to the third construction and extraposition of full VPS has to interact with the argument composition mechanism for coherent constructions that we have discussed at length in previous work. But in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b and to appear) we had to restrict argument raising to nonverbal categories in order to be able to block totally flat structures in which even elements of the verbal complex are direct daughters of the clause rather than forming a constituent. The assumption that argument raising can be restricted to nonverbal categories, is, of course, at odds with the assumption that we have made in this paper, namely, that verbal complements in incoherent infinitive constructions and the third construction can be raised as well. In order to accommodate the full range of categories that are allowed to be raised, we modify the lexical entry for coherent construction
134
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
verbs as shown in (39):
(39)
The list of raised arguments is specified disjunctively: Nonverbal categories are admitted, as before. In addition, verbal categories which carry the feature [EXTRAP + ] are allowed to account for cases of the third construction and full VP extraposition. Finally, we also admit verbal categories which carry the features [NPCOMP + ]. When a control verb licenses an incoherent construction, we assume that its VP complement is marked [NPCOMP + ], as shown in (40).
Thus, inclusion of the [NPCOMP + ] disjunct then also allows for the raising of nonextraposed VP complements in incoherent constructions. By contrast, the verbal complement of a control verb in a coherent construction is marked [EXTRAP -], as shown in (39). Due to the restriction which is
Third Construction and vp Extraposition
135
placed on the list of raised arguments in (39), such a verbal complement cannot be raised if the coherent construction is embedded under another coherent construction. Rather any verbal complement marked as [EXTRAP — ] is forced to be discharged as a sister of its governing verb inside the verbal complex. Now that we have modified the lexical entry of control verbs for coherent constructions, we also have to update the output specification of the Third Construction Lexical Rule since we treat verbs in the third construction as a special case of control verbs for coherent constructions. However, as we will discuss in the next section, we cannot simply duplicate the argument raising specification in (39) for verbs which license coherent constructions as the output of the lexical rule, since there exist some crucial differences between coherent infinitive constructions and the third construction.
7. THE THIRD CONSTRUCTION LEXICAL RULE
While third construction triggering verbs allow scrambling of NP complements in the same way as other control verbs do in coherent infinitive constructions, there is one systematic difference between third construction triggering verbs and other control verbs which license coherent constructions. While the control verbs can raise extraposed verbal complements, third construction triggering verbs may not. As the result, a third construction triggering verb is blocked from embedding another triggering verb whose verbal complement is extraposed, since it would mean that the higher triggering verb has to raise the extraposed verbal complement subcategorized by the lower triggering verb. This can be shown by the ungrammatical examples in (41a): (41) a. * ... daB ich das Fahrrad versprechen muft
that I
the bicycle promise
must
zu versuchen zu reparieren.
to try to repair '(intended)... that I must promise to try to repair the bicycle' b. * ... daB ich das Fahrrad zu versuchen that I the bicycle to try versprechen mufi zu reparieren.
promise must to repair '(intended)... that I must promise to try to repair the bicycle'
136
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
c. * ... daB ich zu versuchen versprechen muB that I to try promise must das Fahrrad zu reparieren. the bicycle to repair '(intended)... that I must promise to try to repair the bicycle' In (4la) versuchen is supposed to be in the scope of versprechen. In order to generate the sentence, both verbs would have to undergo the Third Construction Lexical Rule in (20) and versprechen would have to have the instantiated lexical category in (42). However, such an instantiation of the lexical category can be blocked if we do not allow third construction triggering verbs to raise verbal complements that are marked as [EXTRAP + ].
(42)
versprechen
Notice that the prohibition against raising extraposed verbal complements by third construction triggering verbs can also successfully block examples (41b) and (41c). The ungrammatical examples in (41b) and (41c) indicate that the third construction triggering verbs may not behave like ordinary control verbs for coherent constructions to form part of the verbal complex when they govern another control verb which subcategorizes for an extraposed verbal complement. In both examples, the third construction triggering verb versprechen appears in the verbal complex and governs the embedded verb versuchen which subcategorizes for the extraposed zuinfinitive verb in (41b) and for the extraposed VP in (41c). In order to generate example (41b), both versuchen and versprechen would have to undergo the Third Construction Lexical Rule (20). Furthermore, versprechen would have to raise the complement zu reparieren, which would be marked as [EXTRAP +]. In (41c) versprechen would have to undergo the Third Construction Lexical Rule (20) in order to raise the extraposed complement das Fahrrad zu reparieren. However, a prohibition against raising extraposed verbal complements in the lexical entry for third construction triggering verbs could block this.15 Hence, we propose the
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
137
modification to the Third Construction Lexical Rule shown in (43): (43) Third Construction Lexical Rule
The output of the lexical rule in (43) is different from control verbs such as konnen in (39) which appear only in coherent constructions in two aspects: first, in contrast to verbs for coherent constructions whose verbal complements are marked as [EXTRAP — ], the Third Construction Lexical Rule leaves the EXTRAP feature on the verbal complement unspecified. If the value of the EXTRAP feature is instantiated to be +, then the entry licenses the third construction. Such a feature specification is needed to license structures as in (21). If the EXTRAP value is instantiated as —, then the resulting entry licenses a coherent structure. Such a feature specification is needed for examples such as (32) and the corresponding structure in (34). Second, as shown in the lexical entry for konnen in (39), the list of arguments that can be raised by verbs which appear only in coherent constructions includes extraposed VPS. However, in the verbal complex governed by the output of the Third Construction Lexical Rule, only nonverbal categories and nonextraposed VP may be raised in order to rule out sentences such as (41). An example of the application of the lexical rule is given in (44) and (45). (44) shows the lexical entry for uersuchen, to which the Third Construction Lexical Rule applies to return the output
138
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
shown in (45): (44) versuchen
8. LP RULES
In this section we will discuss the LP rules that we have been tacitly assuming in the previous sections.16 LP rule (46) is taken from Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1993), where we assume that finite verbs in clause-initial or verb-second position carry the feature [INV + ]. All other verbal constituents are assumed to be marked as [INV - ]. (46) accounts for the placement of finite verbs in clause-initial position. A verb-second sentence can then be generated by a clause-initial topic constituent and a verb-initial clause (see Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1994b, and to appear for details).
(46)
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
139
LP rule (47) orders noninverted verbal elements, regardless of whether they are heads or complements, to the right of any NFS: (47)
Since all verbal constituents that are headed by a nonfinite verb are marked as [INV - ], (47) places NFS to the left of the verbal complex and to the left of verbal complements of control verbs, regardless of whether they are extraposed or not. Since finite verbs in subordinate clauses are also marked as [INV — ], (47) also ensures the correct ordering between NFS and the finite verb in subordinate clauses. The remaining rules in (48)-(51) order verbal categories with respect to each other. Rules (48) and (49) order extraposed and nonextraposed VP complements of control verbs with respect to the verbal complex, which is always marked as [NPCOMP — ] by the Verbal-Complex ID schema given in (38): (48)
(49)
LP rules (50) and (51) order extraposed and nonextraposed verbal complements with respect to verbal heads:
(50)
(51)
140
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
LP rule (50) orders nonextraposed verbal categories to the left of noninverted verbal heads. Since the verbal category which dominates the verbal complex is marked as [EXTRAP — ], (50) ensures that the verbal complex precedes the finite verb in subordinate clauses. Since auxiliaries subcategorize for verbal complements that are marked as [EXTRAP - ], (50) also regulates the ordering of verbal heads and their complements within the verbal complex.17 Finally, (50) orders nonextraposed VP complements of control verbs to the left of noninverted finite heads. Here we have to distinguish between two cases: If the control verb is the finite verb of the subordinate clause, i.e., if the sentence contains no verbal complex, then (50) guarantees that its nonextraposed VP complement precedes it. If the control verb is nonfinite, i.e., if the sentence contains a verbal complex, then (50) orders the finite head to the right of the verbal complex, and LP rule (48) ensures that the nonextraposed VP complement of the control verb appears to the left of the verbal complex. (51) ensures that extraposed verbal complements in the third construction and VP complements of control verbs follow the finite head in subordinate clauses and hence appear in clause-final position. Note that the clause-final position of extraposed elements are ensured even when the finite head is inverted to the clause-initial position and hence does not immediately precede extraposed elements. Here we have to distinguish two cases: If the control verb is the inverted finite verb, then (51) together with LP rule (47) places the extraposed verbal complement in clause-final position. If the control verb is nonfinite and embedded within the verbal complex, then LP rule (49) makes sure that the extraposed verbal complement is ordered to the right of the verbal complex and hence appears in clause-final position.
9. LONG PASSIVES With our treatment of the third construction in place, we will consider one additional syntactic phenomenon that has been pointed out in the literature with regard to third construction triggering verbs, namely, the so-called LONG PASSIVE. Hohle (1978) was the first to note that, at least for some speakers, the object NP of the embedded verbal complement can be passivized when governed by third construction triggering verbs such as vergessen. (52) a.
... dafi der Hand uergessen wurde zu futtem. that the NOM dog forgotten was to feed '... that feeding the dog was forgotten'
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
141
b. * ... daB den Hund vergessen wurde zu futtern. that the ACC dog forgotten was to feed c. ... daB den Hund zu futtem vergessen wurde. that the ACC dog to feed forgotten was '... that feeding the god was forgotten' In (52a) the verb vergessen is passivized, and the logical object NP derHund of the embedded verb futtern appears in the nominative case while the verb futtern itself appears in the active mood. Thus is appears that the object NP of the downstairs verb has become the surface subject of the passivized upstairs verb: hence the term long passive.18 As (52b) shows, the nominative case marking is required; i.e., the object of the downstairs verb cannot retain accusative case. It is also possible to passivize vergessen without raising the embedded object to subject, as in (52c). In such cases the passivized verb vergessen licenses an incoherent construction by taking a full VP as a complement. The long passive of a third construction triggering verb in (52a) contrasts with regular "short-distance" personal and impersonal passives in (53)-(55), where a transitive verb exhibits passive morphology: (53) a. Peter sah den Mann. Peter saw the man 'Peter saw the man.' b. Der Mann wurde gesehen. the man was seen 'The man was seen.' (54) a. Peter half dem Mann. Peter helped the DAT man 'Peter helped the man.' b. Dem Mann wurde geholfen. the DAT man was helped 'The man was helped.' c. *Der Mann wurde geholfen. the NOM man was helped (55) a. Die Veteranen gedachten der Toten. the veterans commemorated the GEN dead 'The veterans commemorated the dead.' b. Der Toten wurde gedacht. the GEN dead were commemorated 'The dead were commemorated.'
142
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
c. *Die Toten wurde gedacht. the NOM dead were commemorated For personal passives, the accusative object NP of an active transitive verb, e.g., den Mann in (53a), corresponds to an NP with nominative case, e.g., der Mann in (53b). In impersonal passives, a dative or genitive NP complement of a transitive verb, e.g., the dative NP dem Mann in (54) and der Toten in (55), exhibits the same case assignment in the active and passive forms while promotion to nominative case is ungrammatical (cf. (54c) and (55c)). As in the case of ordinary passives, the long passive construction also allows both personal and impersonal passives. (56) a.
.. .daft dem Mann versucht wurde zu helfen. that the DAT man tried was to help '... that helping the man was tried' b. * ... daft der Mann versucht wurde zu helfen. that the NOM man tried was to help '(intended)... that helping the man was tried' c. ... daft dem Mann zu helfen versucht wurde. that the DAT man to help tried was '... that helping the man was tried'
The data in (56a) and (56c) parallel those in (52a) and (52c), except that (52a) shows an example of a long personal passive, while (56a) exemplifies the long impersonal passive. The ungrammaticality of (56b) shows that in long impersonal passives it is ungrammatical to promote a dative NP to nominative case. This parallels the ungrammaticality of ordinary impersonal passives in (54c). Additional data show that the distribution of long passives is not necessarily restricted to the third construction. Example (57) illustrates that third construction triggering verbs, i.e., subject-control equi verbs without an object NP, allow long passive even when the governed zw-infinitive is not extraposed. (57)
...daft der Hund zu futtem vergessen wurde. that the NOM dog to feed forgotten was '... that feeding the dog was forgotten'
This example exhibits an interesting contrast with (52c), where the entire VP constitues a complement of a passivized verb. The fact that the VP den Hund zu futtem is actually a constituent can be confirmed by (58a), where the entire VP is extraposed while the corresponding sequence der Hund zu futtem in (57) does not form a constituent and cannot be extraposed as
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
143
shown in (58b): (58) a.
...daft uergessen wurde den Hund zu futtem. that forgotten was the ACC dog to feed '... that feeding the dog was forgotten' b * ...daft uergessen wurde der Hund zu futtem. that forgotten was the NOM dog to feed '... that feeding the dog was forgotten'
The above data indicate that long personal passive can be characterized as a passivization of subject-control equi verbs with the passive subject raised from the COMPS lists of the governed verb. Thus it can be analyzed by the Long Passive Lexical Rule (59), which applies to the same set of lexical entries as the Third Construction Lexical Rule: (59) Long Passive Lexical Rule
The Long Passive Lexical Rule is not intended to replace, but rather to be introduced in addition to lexical rules that can license regular "short distance" personal and impersonal passives.19 It applies only to subjectcontrol equi verbs without an object NP and produces their passive forms. Unlike a regular passive lexical rule, the passive subject is specified as the object NP which the governed verb in the output subcategorizes for rather than the object NP of the input verbs. The governed zw-infinitive verb is
144
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
unspecified for the EXTRAP feature: if it is realized as [EXTRAP +], long passive appears as part of the third construction as in (52a), and if [EXTRAP - ], then long passive appears with a coherent construction as in (57). Note that other control verbs such as auxiliaries and Acl verbs also raise complements of the governed verb licensing coherent constructions, but they allow neither the third construction nor long passive as shown in (60): (60)
*Der Wagen wurde den Karl kaufen gesehen. the NOM car was the Karl buy seen '(intended) Karl was seen buying the car.'
This fact is accounted for the Long Passive Lexical Rule, which requires subject-control equi verbs as input. The object NP of the complement verb in the output of lexical rule (59) shares the index with the passive subject and is specified to be accusative. This specification guarantees that the nominative passive subject appears only when the complement verbs subcategorize for an accusative NP. In order to accommodate long impersonal passives, a slightly modified version of the Long Passive Lexical Rule would have to be postulated separately. That is, the COMPS list of the complement verb may not contain an accusative NP, and the SUBJ must take an empty list in the output. For further details of passivizability of different classes of verbs, see Pollard (1994). Kathol (1994) and Pollard (1994) have proposed to analyze German Passive without a lexical rule. The essence of their analysis is the view of passive as object-to-subject raising. In such a view, the passive auxiliary verb werden 'be' is the locus of passivization and its lexical entry specifies raising of an object NP of a complement verb, i.e., the main verb in the passive form, to the passive subject. Pollard (1994) analyzes long passive in terms of two steps: First, argument composition encoded in the lexical entry of a subject-control equi verb merges the COMPS list of the embedded verb, crucially including the downstairs object NP, into the COMPS list of itself. Then the auxiliary verb werden which governs the subject-control equi verb raises the downstairs object NP to the passive subject. Thus, in such an analysis of passivization, neither ordinary, "short-distance" passives, nor long passives require a lexical rule. Long passives simply follow from the interaction of argument composition and werden passives. Since it is beyond the scope of this paper to give a detailed comparison between the two approaches to passive, i.e., the lexical rule approach briefly sketched above and the approach taken by Kathol (1994) and Pollard (1994) to encode raising in the passive auxiliary werden, it suffices to point out that our analysis of the third construction is fully compatible with either approach and predicts the long passive data correctly.
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
145
10. A COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS ANALYSES Den Besten and Rutten (1989) propose an analysis for Dutch that predicts that any third construction triggering verb also allows VP extraposition since the third construction is treated as a special case of VP extraposition: VP extraposition plus long-distance scrambling. Our analysis for German makes the same prediction since our lexical rule takes as input a certain subclass of control verbs, i.e., subject-equi verbs without overt object which license incoherent constructions. However, there are also some interesting differences between the scrambling account of den Besten and Rutten and our account of the third construction that is based on the notion of argument composition. These differences concern sentences in which a third construction triggering verb such as versuchen appears inside an extraposed VP, as in (61): (61) a.
... dqfl ich Maria uberreden muB zu versuchen that I Maria persuade must to try das Fahrrad zu reparieren. the bicycle to repair ' . . . that I must persuade Maria to try to repair the bicycle' b. ... daB ich Maria uberreden muB das Fahrrad that I Maria persuade must the bicycle zu versuchen zu reparieren. to try to repair '... that I must persuade Maria to try to repair the bicycle' c. * ... daB ich Maria das Fahrrad uberreden muB that I Maria the bicycle persuade must zu versuchen zu reparieren. to try to repair '(intended)... that I must persuade Maria to try to repair the bicycle'
Our analysis correctly predicts the grammaticality of both (61a) and (61b). (61a) is a case of double VP extraction. (61b) repeats our earlier example (29) and is an example of a third construction that appears inside an extraposed VP. Our analysis also straightforwardly accounts for the ungrammaticality of (61c) since in the third construction we treat das Fahrrad and zu reparieren as sisters of the triggering verb zu versuchen. Therefore, these complements can only occur inside the extraposed VP. Placement of das Fahrrad inside the Mittelfeld, as in (61c), is simply not possible because uberreden requires a saturated VP as a complement. Sentences such as (61c), however, appear to be a problem for den Besten and Rutten's scrambling account since nothing seems to block "long-distance scrambling" of das Fahrrad to the left of uberreden. Of
146
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
course, one could stipulate restrictions on long-distance scrambling that would rule out (61c). In our analysis no extra stipulations are necessary; rather the ungrammaticality of the sentence follows from independent features of the analysis. Moreover, at least in German there are verbs that allow VP extraposition, but not the third construction. The range of verbs that are in this class seem to differ from speaker to speaker. Therefore a lexical treatment, i.e., treating the third construction by a lexical rule, seems to be preferable to a syntactic account in terms of long distance scrambling since it seems much harder to constrain such a configurational account in such a way that long-distance scrambling is blocked for verbs that allow VP extraposition, but not the third construction.20 Kiss (1993) sketches an account of the third construction that differs significantly from the extraction analyses of Uszkoreit (1987) and of den Besten and Rutten (1989) and from the argument composition analysis proposed in this paper. Kiss proposes to analyze the third construction as a coherence phenomenon and wants to account for the word order facts in terms of reordering of verbs within the verbal complex. In his analysis, thus, the third construction in (62a) is generated in terms of reordering of verbal elements of the coherent construction in (62b). The proposed structure for (62a) is given in (63):21 (62) a. .. .daB er das Auto versucht zu reparieren.
that he the car tries to repair '... that he tries to repair the car' b. ... daB er das Auto zu reparieren versucht. that he the car to repair tries '... that he tries to repair the car'
(63)
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
147
While this reordering analysis can account for the word order facts of the third construction in simple examples, the analysis does not scale up to more complex cases such as (26a), repeated here as (64): (64)
.. .daB er das Auto meint reparieren zu dtirfen. that he the car thinks repair to be allowed '... that he thinks that he is allowed to repair the car'
The reason Kiss cannot account for examples such as (64) has to do with the type of branching that he assumes for the verbal complex. Kiss assumes the right-branching structure in (65) for the coherent structure which corresponds to the third construction in (64):
(65)
As shown in (65), Kiss assumes a right-branching structure for the verbal complex which is the inverse of the semantic scope relations among verbal elements. This branching structure is a consequence of Kiss' treatment of coherent structures. Kiss characterizes control verbs for coherent constructions as subcategorizing for lexical verbs, i.e., verbs that are marked as [LEX + ], and therefore does not need to employ a feature such as NPCOMP, which is needed in our analysis to force argument raising. However, as shown in (65), it is precisely Kiss' right-branching structure that prevents him from predicting the correct word order for complex cases of the third construction. Instead of the correct word order shown in (64), Kiss would predict the ungrammatical (66) generated as the result of two levels of reordering within the verbal complex: (66) * ... daft er das Auto meint zu durfen reparieren. that he the car think to be allowed repair
148
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
11. OPEN PROBLEMS Some authors have pointed out (e.g., Kvam, 1983; GeifuB, 1991; and Wollstein-Leisten, 1994) that the extraposed verbal constituent in the third construction may also contain a nominal complement if the extraposed verb is ditransitive, even though the acceptability of such a sentence is marginal at least for some speakers.22 (67) a. ... daB that '... that b. .. .daB that '... that
ich Maria versucht habe das Buck zu geben. I Maria tried have the book to give I have tried to give Maria the book' ich das Buck versucht habe Maria zu geben. I the book tried have Maria to give I have tried to give Maria the book'
Our analysis of the third construction which we have developed so far does not admit sentences such as (67) since the Third Construction Lexical Rule (43) requires the extraposed verbal constituent to be marked as [NPCOMP — ]. This means that only a verbal complex or a single zw-infinitive verb can appear in this position. In order to generate sentences such as (67) we would have to eliminate the [NPCOMP — ] specification on the extraposed verbal constituent. Moreover, we would have to ensure that unsaturated VPS, i.e., VPS which are still lacking a (nominal) complement, can be licensed by an ID schema. This could be accomplished by introducing an ID schema of the sort proposed by Pollard (1996):
(68)
The ID schema licenses an indeterminate number of complement sisters of a verbal head, as long as the mother still has a nonempty COMPS list. While the rule can generate partial VP such as das Buck zu geben as in (67a), the introduction of such a rule would lead to massive spurious ambiguity in a grammar of German, as has already been pointed out by Pollard (1996): apart from the totally flat structure of the finite verb and the binary hierarchical structure of the verbal complex, the grammar would also admit an indeterminate depth of embedding partial VPS for the same string of words. However, even if one were to tolerate spurious ambiguity, the analysis for sentences such as (67) which we have just sketched has the more
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
149
serious problem that it leads to overgeneration. As mentioned in section 4, an empirical generalization is that the extraposed verbal category that can appear in the third construction is either a lexical zw-infinitive verb or a single coherent construction, but crucially not an incoherent construction. However, with the Partial VP Expansion ID Schema (68) in place, an incoherent construction as in (28), repeated here as (69), could, in fact, be admitted in the third construction: (69)
* ... daB ich Maria vergessen habe zu versprechen das Auto that I Maria forgotten have to promise the car zu reparieren. to repair '(intended)... that I have forgotten to promise Maria to repair the car'
In (69), vergessen would be the third construction triggering verb. The extraposed VP in which versprechen is missing its dative complement Maria could be generated by the Partial VP Expansion ID Schema (68). We will have nothing further to say on the topic of partial VPS in the third construction in this paper and will have to leave this matter to future research. Another issue which we will not be able to solve here, but which constitutes a potential problem for our treatment of incoherent constructions concerns sentences such as (70a) and (70b): (70) a. * ...daft Peter Maria uberredet, [Karl [das Auto that Peter Maria persuades Karl the car zu kaufen] zu zwingen] to buy to force '(intended)... that Peter persuades Maria to force Karl to buy the car' b. * ... daB Peter Maria [Karl zu zwingen [das Auto zu kaufen]] uberredet. c. ...daft Peter Maria uberredet [Karl zu zwingen [das Auto zu kaufen]]. In (70a) the extraposed VP complement of uberredet, which licenses incoherent structures, contains a nonextraposed VP das Auto zu kaufen. In (70b) the VP embedded under iiberreden as a whole is not extraposed, but this VP contains the extraposed VP das Auto zu kaufen. Both sentences are ungrammatical, while (70c), where both VPS have been extraposed, is grammatical. Thus, when one VP is in the scope of the other, one cannot be extraposed without the other. Our analysis, as it stands, treats all three examples as grammatical. One way to force double extraposition would be
150
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
to mark the VP complement in the lexical entry of incoherent construction control verbs as [EXTRAP + ]. However, this would at the same time exclude sentences such as (71): (71)
. . . daB er Maria zu singen uberreden konnte. that he Maria to sing persuade could '... that he could persuade Maria to sing'
While extraposition seems to be strongly preferred for control verbs such as uberreden, nonextraposed VPS do seem to be possible.23 That is precisely the reason we left the VP complement of uberreden in (40), as well as other control verbs for incoherent constructions, unspecified for the EXTRAP feature. The factors which determine whether or not VP complements are extraposed may well include extragrammatical considerations such as processing constraints. However, since such issues are beyond the scope of the present paper, we will not be able to block examples such as (70a) and (70b) in our grammar.
12. CONCLUSION We have presented an analysis of the third construction as a special case of VP extraposition. Both phenomena are analyzed in light of a wider range of data, namely, infinitive constructions in general. Following Bech (1955), we classify German infinitive constructions into coherent and incoherent constructions, and have shown that not only extraposition but also other syntactic behaviors such as topicalization, auxiliary flip, and scrambling naturally follow from the different constituent structures we assign to the two classes of constructions. In coherent infinitive constructions, control verbs and embedded verbs form a constituent and allow both upstairs and downstairs NP complements to be sisters, correctly predicting the possibility of scrambling among the NP complements and the intervention by other elements between NP complements and the verbal complements. On the other hand, in incoherent infinitive constructions, embedded complements constitute a VP, and thus allow extraposition of the VP as a whole. We attribute the difference in the syntactic structures to the lexical specifications of control verbs. The lexical entries of the control verbs which license the coherent constructions encode argument composition in the COMPS value while the control verbs for the incoherent constructions subcategorize for a full VP complement. We have argued that the analysis of the third comstruction can be based on argument composition, which is needed independently for coherent
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
151
constructions, together with linearization among raised arguments. That is, we claim that the third construction requires no extraction and is a special case of extraposition. The fact that the third construction triggering verbs also appear in both coherent and incoherent infinitive constructions is accounted for in terms of the lexical rule which maps the two classes of lexical specifications for control verbs. The Third Construction Lexical Rule takes triggering verbs which are specified to subcategorize for a VP and license incoherent constructions. The output of the lexical rule specifies the COMPS value of such verbs in terms of argument composition. It licenses either a coherent construction or the third construction, depending on whether a zu -infinitive verb is raised and extraposed or stays in the verbal complex. Thus the third construction can be nicely characterized as a case of argument composition and requires little more than the lexical entries for control verbs which are proposed for the coherent and incoherent infinitive constructions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful for invaluable comments from Thilo Gotz, Georgia Green, Tilman Hohle, Tibor Kiss, Detmar Meurers, Frank Morawietz, Jerry Morgan, John Nerbonne, Klaus Netter, Dick Oehrle, Carl Pollard, Frank Richter, and Ivan Sag. Our special thanks go to Andreas Kathol, the other editor of this volume, and two anonymous referees for detailed comments on earlier versions.
NOTES These authors also observe that grammaticality judgments for the third construction can differ considerably from speaker to speaker as to the range of verbs that can trigger the third construction. Grammaticality judgments about the third construction can also be affected by processing difficulties. For example, the fact that some speakers reject clauses where the third construction appears inside an extraposed VP, such as (i), may not be a matter of grammaticality as such, but due to the difficulty of processing a sequence of two zw-infinitives. (i)
. . . daB Peter versprochen hat es zu versuchen zu reparieren.
that Peter promised has it to try '... that Peter promised to try to repair it' 2
to repair
An anonymous referee has pointed out that the placement of das and zu kaufen in (3a) could arguably be analyzed as the result of scrambling each constituent
152
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
separately to the beginning of the clause, rather than relativization of a single VP constituent. Such a scrambling account has, in fact, been proposed by Haider (1985). However, a scrambling analysis of VP relatives cannot account for examples such as (i) where a relativized VP das zu lesen originates from the inside of the VP complement governed by the control verb sich weigern. (i) Das ist das Buck das zu lesen er sich weigerte seiner Frau zu versprechen. That is the book which to read he self refused his wife to promise. 'That is the book which he refused to promise his wife to read.' We refer readers interested in further details of the VP relativization construction in German to van Riemsdijk (1987), De Kuthy-GroBkopf (1996), and Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1997) for relevant discussion. For a survey of possible word order variations, marginal examples, and processing considerations, we refer readers to the excellent survey in Rambow (1994). See Kiss (1994) for a similar analysis of incoherent constructions though the constituent structures assigned to coherent constructions are drastically different from the ones we propose in the following sections. 4 We assume that the possible values for the feature VFORM for German include bse, inf, and psp. They are meant to differentiate among bare infinitives such as kaufen, infinitives marked by zu such as zu kaufen, and past participles such as gekauft, respectively. The three values also correspond to the three STATUS of verbs identified by Bech (1955). 5 One piece of evidence for assuming VP constituents in coherent infinitive constructions might at first glance be derived from the fact that a VP can be topicalized, as in (i) Das Buch lesen konnen wird Peter. the book read can will Peter 'Peter will be able to read the book.' For extensive discussion of topicalization in German, see Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b and to appear), where we claim, following Nerbonne (1994), that VPS can appear with control verbs which license coherent structures only in topicalized position, but never in the Mittelfeld. In example (14) and the following examples, © denotes the list append operation. Also, we are assuming here, as we did in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b and to appear), that subjects of finite verbs in German appear on the COMPS list, rather than as the value of SUBJ. See Borsley (1987) for detailed justification. 7 The version of the lexical entry for coherent infinitives shown in (15) is slightly revised compared to the entry proposed in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994a, b, and to appear) which constrained the raised material to be nonverbal. 8 Notice that the finite auxiliary appears as an immediate constituent of the clause and is not part of the verbal complex. As discussed in more detail in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b and to appear), this allows us to provide a nonmovement analysis of the finite verb in German of the sort first proposed by Pollard (1996). A number of researchers, including cf. Kiss and Wesche (1991),
Third Construction and w Extraposition
153
Netter (1992), Frank (1994), and Kathol (1995) have proposed an alternative analysis that places the finite verb as the highest verb in the verbal complex. Kiss and Wesche (1991), Netter (1992), and Frank (1994) employ a SLASH mechanism to account for verb-second placement of the finite verb, while Kathol shows that a nonmovement analysis of verb-second placement is possible, even if the finite verb is embedded in a verbal complex. Since the proper treatment of placement of the finite verb in different clause types of German is not the topic of this paper, we will adopt our earlier analysis (Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1994a) without further discussion. For the issues at hand, it is important to note, however, that the alternative analyses cited above also employ argument composition for the internal structure of the verbal complex. 9 Incidentally, Pollard and Sag (1994:150) have sketched a nonmovement analysis of VP extraposition in English in terms of a lexical rule. 10 Kathol (1995), who proposes a similar lexical analysis of third construction triggering verbs, lists each lexical entry, rather than generating them through a lexical rule. u Among the control verbs which license coherent structures, most govern base infinitives. However, a small class of control verbs which license coherent structures, e.g., scheinen 'to appear' and pflegen 'to be in the habit of,' govern zw-infinitives. 12 See Hohle (1986) and Uszkoreit (1987) for a detailed analysis of the word order variation in the German Mittelfeld. We owe this example to Andreas Kathol (personal communication). 14 Due to space limitations, prefixes for some feature paths in (38), (39) (42-45) (48)-(50), and (59) are truncated, as long as the full feature paths can be recovered from the HPSG feature geometry assumed throughout the paper. 15 Andreas Kathol (personal communication) has pointed out an example with wagen as the third construction triggering verb that may be an exception to this generalization: (i)
... daft er zu versuchen wagte, den Wagen noch einmal zu reparieren. that he to try dared the car once again to repair '... that he dared to try to repair the car once more'
Starting with Reape (1993) there have been a number of proposals, including Richter and Sailer (1995) and Kathol (1995), for more powerful theories of word order for HPSG. In these theories word order generalizations can be stated not only for the domain of local trees, as in the ID/LP rules, but also for larger domains. While the power of the ID/LP rules seems to suffice for the treatment of linear order for the third construction and VP extraposition, our use of the ID/LP rules should not be taken as an implicit rejection of these more powerful theories. 17 Please note that the ID rule in (50), as it stands, fails to account for the auxiliary flip construction. We refer interested readers to Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994a) for a detailed discussion of this construction and of how the LP rule (50) can be further specified to properly account for the construction in an ID/LP format.
154
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
18
See also "long-distance passive" in Bayer and Kornfilt (1990, 1991) and "remote passive" in Pollard (1994). 19 For examples of rules for ordinary passives, see the ones proposed by Pollard and Sag (1987) for English and by Kiss (1992) for German. 20 Uszkoreit's (1987) treatment of the third construction, which he calls "focus raising," suffers from the same problems as den Besten and Rutten's analysis since Uszkoreit treats placement of the focus-raised constituent (i.e., the NP complement) by the SLASH mechanism of GPSG. Uszkoreit's analysis differs from den Besten and Rutten's in that no link is established between extraposition and focus raising. This leads to additional difficulties since nothing seems to rule out focus raising of an NP from the incoherent construction while the zw-infinitive verb is not extraposed as in (ii): (i)
... daB der Mann [VPdas Buck zu lesen] sich weigerte. that the man the book to read self refused '... that the man refused to read the book' (ii) * ... daB das Buck der Mann zu lesen sich weigerte. that the book the man to read self refused 21 As can be gleaned from the tree structure in (63), Kiss assumes a hierarchical structure for NP complements in the Mittelfeld and treats the finite verb as part of the verbal complex. 22 A den Besten and Rutten-style analysis for the third construction in German could conceivably account for data such as (67) since their notion of "long-distance scrambling" seems to apply to any number of complements of a ditransitive verb. Also see Uszkoreit (1987) for examples in which extraposed zw-infinitives are accompanied by adjuncts. 23 This observation is also made by Bech (1955).
REFERENCES Bayer, J., and J. Kornfilt (1990). Restructuring effects in German. In E. Engdahl, M. Reape, M. Mellor, and R. Cooper (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Parametric Variation in Germanic and Romance: Proceedings from a DYANA Workshop, September 1989. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, Vol. 6, 21-42. Bayer, J., and J. Kornfilt (1991). Against scrambling as move-alpha. In Proceedings 0f NELS21, 1-15. Bech, G. (1955). Studien uber das Deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Bierwisch, M. (1963). Grammatik des Deutschen Verbs. Stadia Grammatica II. Borsley, R. (1987). Subjects and Complements in HPSG. Technical Report CSLI117-87. CSLI, Stanford, CA.
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
155
De Kuthy-GroBkopf, K. (1996). Der Rattenfdngereffekt bei Relativ- und Interrogativsdtzen im Deutschen. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Seminar fur Sprachwissenschaft, Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen, den Besten, H., and J. Rutten (1989). On verb raising, extraposition and free word order in Dutch. In D. Jaspers et al. (eds.), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. 41-56. Evers, A. (1975). The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Dissertation, University of Utrecht. (Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.) Frank, A. (1994). Verb Second by Lexical Rule or by Underspecification. Arbeitsberichte des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 Nr. 43-1994, University of Stuttgart. GeilfuB, J. (1991). Zur Syntax des Verbalkomplexes. In J. GeilfuB (ed.), Verb und Verbphrasensyntax, Bericht 11-91, 59-86, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Universitat Tubingen. Haider, H. (1985). Der Rattenfangerei muB ein Ende gemacht werden. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 35-36x, 37-50. Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax—Generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einerprojektiven Grammatik. Narr Verlag, Tubingen. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1989). Flipped out: AUX in German. Chicago Linguistic Society 25, 193-202. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1993). Aspects of German VP Structure: An HPSG Account. Technical Report SfS-Report-01-93, Seminar fur Sprachwissenschaft, Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994a). Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 11-38. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994b). Topicalization in German—An HPSG analysis. In E. Hinrichs, D. Meurers, and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Partial-VP and Split-NP Topicalization—An HPSG Analysis and Its Implementation, 1-46. Bericht 58-94, Arbeitsberichte des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Universitat Tubingen. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1997). VP Relatives in German—An HPSG Analysis. Paper presented at HPSG97, the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Ithaca. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (to appear). Topicalization in German—An HPSG analysis. In R. Levine and G. Green (eds.), Readings in Modern Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Hohle, T. N. (1978). Lexikalistiche Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv Relation und andere Infinitkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tubingen. Hohle, T. N. (1986). Der Begriff 'Mittelfeld.' Anmerkungen iiber die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In A. Schone (ed.), Kontroversen alte und neue. Akten des VII. Intemationalen Germanistenkongresses, Vol. 3, 329-340. Gottingen.
156
E. W. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa
Kathol, A. (1994). Passives without lexical rules. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 237-272. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kathol, A. (1995). Linearization-Based German Syntax. Dissertation, Ohio State University. Kiss, T. (1992). Variable Subkategorisierung—eine Theorie der unpersonlichen Konstruktionen im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 140, 256-293. Kiss, T. (1993). Infinite Komplementation. Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum Infinitum. Theorie des Lexikons: Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282, Nr. 42, Heinrich Heine Universitat Diisseldorf. Kiss, T. (1994). Obligatory coherence: An investigation into the syntax of modal and semimodal verbs in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 71-107. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kiss, T. and B. Wesche (1991). Verb order and head movement in German. In O. Herzog and C.-R. Rollinger (eds.), Text Understanding in LILOG. Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, 216-240. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Kvam, S. (1983). Linksverschachtelung im Deutschen und Norwegischen: Eine kontrastive Untersuchung zur Satzverschrdnkung und Infinitivverschrankung in der deutschen und norwegischen Gegenwartssprache. Niemeyer, Tubingen. Nerbonne, J. (1994). Partial Verb Phrases and Spurious Ambiguities. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Nerbonne, J., K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.) (1994). German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Netter, K. (1992). On non-head non-movement. An HPSG treatment of finite verb position in German. In G. Gorz (ed.), Proceedings of KONVENS 92, 218-227. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/New York. Pollard, C. (1994). Toward a unified account of passive in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C. (1996). On head non-movement. In H. Bunt, and A. van Horck (eds.), Discontinuous Constituency, 279-305. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. CSLI Lecture Notes No. 13, 273-296. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, and CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Rambow, O. (1994). Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Reape, M. (1993). A Formal Theory of Word Order: A Case Study in West Germanic. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Reape, M. (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 151-305. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
Third Construction and VP Extraposition
157
Richter, F., and M. Sailer (1995). Remarks on Linearization: Reflections on the Treatment of LP-Rules in HPSG in a Typed Feature Logic. Master thesis, Universitat Tubingen. Santorini, B., and A. S. Kroch (1990). Remnant Extraposition in German. Unpublished manuscript. Uszkoreit, H. (1987). Word Order and Constituent Structure in German. CSLI Lecture Notes No. 8. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. van Riemsdijk, H. (1987). Der Rattenfanger Effekt bei Infinitiven in deutschen Relativsatzen. In W. Abraham (ed.), Erkldrende Syntax des Deutschen, 75-98. Tubingen. Visser, F. Th. (1963-1973). An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part 111.2:2118. F. J. Brill, Leiden. Wollstein-Leisten, A. (1994). Zur Syntax der dritten Konstruktion. Unpublished manuscript, University of Stuttgart.
This page intentionally left blank
ARGUMENT COMPOSITION AND LONG-DISTANCE SCRAMBLING IN KOREAN: AN EXTENSION OF THE COMPLEX PREDICATE ANALYSIS CHAN CHUNG Department of English Language and Literature Dongseo University Churye-Dong, Sasang-ku Pusan, Korea
1. INTRODUCTION
Debates on configurationality have arisen from the observation that languages such as Warlpiri differ from languages such as English in that the former tend to have the following properties that tend to be lacking in the latter (Hale, 1982): (1) a. great freedom of surface word order b. frequent use of discontinuous constituents c. complex verb word system (verbal complexes) d. use of a rich case system e. frequent "pronoun drop" f. lack of pleonastic NFS (e.g., it and there in English) g. lack of NP movement According to these criteria, Korean must be considered a nonconfigurational language, since it has many of the properties in (1) such as (la), (Ic), (Id), (le), and (If). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderiuational Syntax
159
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
160
Chan Chung
The goal of this paper is to investigate the properties in (la) and (Ic) in Korean. It is a well-known fact that Korean allows long-distance scrambling (clause-external scrambling) as well as clause-internal scrambling. The main proposal of this paper is as follows: the coexistence of the verbal complex system and long-distance scrambling in Korean is naturally accounted for, since both cases are licensed by the same syntactic mechanism, called argument composition by Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994). Roughly speaking, argument composition is a mechanism which "attracts" the arguments of the governed verb to the argument list of the governing verb. The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we discuss the auxiliary verb construction (verbal complex construction) in Korean and its relevant properties. Here we propose that the mechanism of argument composition is crucial to account for certain facts about the auxiliary verb construction. In section 3, we explore how the argument composition mechanism can be extended to account for scrambling in various s- and vp-complement constructions (e.g., embedded-clause, control-verb, raising-verb, and causative constructions), proposing that this mechanism is also crucial to describe word order variation in those constructions. This analysis entails that both the verbal complex and long-distance scrambling constructions are licensed by the same syntactic mechanism. In section 4, we discuss some theoretical predictions made by our proposal. There we discuss long-distance passivization and weak crossover effects. Section 5 is the conclusion.
2. ARGUMENT COMPOSITION AND AUXILIARY VERB CONSTRUCTION
The organization of this section is as follows. In section 2.1, we discuss the properties of auxiliary verb constructions, focusing on the fact that auxiliary + verb combinations strongly resist separation or intrusion by other syntactic elements. In section 2.2, we discuss the problematic aspects of certain previous analyses which assume that an auxiliary takes a VP or an s as its complement. In section 2.3, we provide linguistic motivation for the argument composition analysis, showing how it can account for the problems raised in section 2.2.
161
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
2.1. Properties of Korean Auxiliary Verbs The following are examples of Korean auxiliary verbs:
Auxiliary verb
(2) a. iss 'be in the process/ state of b. siph 'want'
Verb form of the governed verb ko
ko
c. toy 'be led to'
key
d. anh 'not'
ci
e. po 'try as a test'
a/e
f. chiwu 'do resolutely'
a/e
g. noh 'do in advance'
a/e
h. cwu 'do as a favor for'
a/e
i. nay 'do to the very end/ thoroughly' j. ha 'act like'
a/e
k. ci passive
a/e
a/e
Example cako issta sleep AUX 'is sleeping' cako siphta sleep AUX 'want to sleep' cwukkey toyta die AUX 'be led to die' cwukci anhta die AUX 'do not die' ilke pota read AUX 'try reading something' phala chiwuta sell AUX 'sell something resolutely' malyenhaye nohta prepare AUX 'prepare something in advance' malyenhaye cwuta prepare AUX 'prepare something as a favor for someone' kyentye nayta endure AUX 'endure to the last' siphe hata want AUX 'act like someone wants something' sewe cita build AUX 'be built'
162
Chan Chung
One special property of the auxiliary construction is that the auxiliary and its complement verb form a syntactic unit to the exclusion of other phrasal arguments (e.g., subject, objects, etc.) as illustrated in (3): (3) a. Mary-ka sakwa-lul mekko issta. M-Nom apple-Ace eat be in the process of 'Mary is eating an apple.' b. afterthoughts i. Sakwa-lul mekko issta, Mary-ka. apple-Ace eat be in the process of M-Nom ii. Mary-ka mekko issta, sakwa-lul. M-Nom eat be in the process of apple-Ace iii. *Mary-ka sakwa-lul issta, mekko. M-Nom apple-Ace be in the process of eat iv. * Mary-ka issta, sakwa-lul mekko. M-Nom be in the process of apple-Ace eat c. parentheticals i. Mary-ka hayekan sakwa-lul mekko issta. M-Nom anyway apple-Ace eat be in the process of 'Anyway, Mary is eating an apple.' ii. Mary-ka sakwa-lul hayekan mekko issta. M-Nom apple-Ace anyway eat be in the process of iii. Mary-ka sakwa-lul mekko hayekan issta. M-Nom apple-Ace eat anyway be in the process of The sentences in (3b) show that the governed verb mekko 'eat' cannot be separated from the auxiliary issta 'be in the process of as an afterthought expression. And the sentences in (3c) show that even a parenthetical expression cannot occur between an auxiliary and its complement verb. Most auxiliaries share properties with subject-control verbs such as sitoha 'try' in that the controller of the auxiliary is the subject of the main verb. However, auxiliaries differ from the ordinary control verbs in that the auxiliary and its governed verb cannot be separated by an independent word, as shown in (3). A genuine control verb such as sitoha 'try' and its governed verb do not constitute the same kind of syntactic unit, as is illustrated in (4): (4) a. Mary-ka ku mwuncey-lul phwulye-ko sitohayessta. M-Nom the problem-Ace solve tried 'Mary tried to solve the problem.' b. Mary-ka ku mwuncey-lul phwulye-ko kkuncilkikey sitohayessta. M-Nom the problem-Ace solve ceaselessly tried c. Mary-ka sitohayessta, ku mwuncey-lul phwulye-ko. M-Nom tried the problem-Ace solve
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
163
In (4b), the adverbial expression kkuncilkikey 'ceaselessly' intervenes between the governed verb and the control verb; in (4c), the governed verb is part of an afterthought expression and is separated from the control verb. (See section 3 for detailed discussion on the control verb construction.) There are three possible structures for the auxiliary construction, as shown in (5): (5)
I will call (5a) the vp-complement analysis, (5b) the s-complement analysis, and (5c) the complex predicate analysis. In section 2.2, we discuss the VPand s-complement analyses and their problems. In section 2.3, we introduce the notion of argument composition and show how it works in the complex predicate analysis.
2.2. VP- and s-Complement Analyses and Their Problems
The vp-complement analysis in (5a), advocated by Yoon (1993) and No (1991) among others, states that the complement of an auxiliary is a VP. One of the difficulties with this analysis is that it allows no ready explanation for the tight bond between the head and its complement in the auxiliary case vs the control verb case, as was seen in the difference of behavior in (3) vs (4). To avoid this problem, we may assume that a mismatch between syntax and morphology occurs in the Korean auxiliary verb construction, as proposed by No (1991:169-171). According to No, an auxiliary takes a VP as its complement at the level of syntax, and hence the auxiliary and the governed verb do not form a unit at the syntactic level. At the level of morphology, however, the clitic auxiliary must attach to the head of the complement VP, and hence the auxiliary and the governed verb form a composite morphological word. A problem with this proposal is that no empirical syntactic evidence exists that the auxiliary takes a VP as its complement. Rather, some syntactic phenomena that are discussed below cause problems for the vp-complement analysis. Moreover, it would be theoretically more desirable to get rid of this kind of mismatch between
164
Chan Chung
two components in a grammar whenever possible, especially when the motivation for the mismatch is not obvious. The first empirical problem with the analysis in (5 a) is a fact about passivization. In Korean, two kinds of passivization are generally assumed. One is passivization through suffixes (-/, -hi, -li, and -ki), and the other is passivization using the auxiliary ci (henceforth a'-passivization). For the current discussion, only a'-passivization is relevant because auxiliaries can only be passivized using ci. The following provides an example: (6) a. Cengpwu-ka ku kenmwul-lul seywessta. government-Norn the building-Ace constructed The government constructed the building.' b. Ku kenmwul-i cengpwu-eyuyhay seywe ci-essta. the building-Norn government-by construct passive-past 'The building was constructed by the government.' Even though not all auxiliaries can be governed by the auxiliary ci, some auxiliaries can be governed and passivized, as shown in (7) and (8):1 (7) a. Ku nongpwu-ka malssengmanhun so-lul phala the farmer-Norn troublesome cow-Ace sell chiw-essta. do resolutely-past The farmer resolutely sold the troublesome cow.' b. Malssengmanhun so-ka (ku nongpwu-eyuyhay) troublesome cow-Norn the farmer-by phala chiwe ci-essta. sell do resolutely passive-past The troublesome cow was resolutely sold (by the farmer).' (8) a. Kwukhoyuywentul-i ku pepan-ul malyenhay nohu-nikka, Congressmen-Norn the bill-Ace plan do in advance-when taythonglyeng-i pantayhayssta. president-Norn raised an objection 'When congressmen planned the bill, the president raised an objection to it.' b. Ku pepan-i (kwukhoyuywentul-eyuyhay) malyenhay the bill-Norn Congressmen-by plan noha ci-nikka, taythonglyeng-i pantayhayssta. do in advance passive-when president-Norn raised an objection 'When the bill was planned by congressmen, the president raised an objection to it.'
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
165
If we take auxiliary constructions to have the structure in (5a), the analysis of (7a,b) would be as in (9a,b), respectively: (9) a. [s Ku nongpwu-ka [VP [VP malssengmanhun so-lul the farmer-Norn troublesome cow-Ace phala] chiw-essta]] sell do resolutely-past 'The farmer resolutely sold the troublesome cow.' b. [s Malssengmanhun so-ka [VP [VP [VP (ku nongpwu-eyuyhay) troublesome cow-Norn the farmer-by phala] chiwe] ci-essta] sell resolutely passive-past 'The troublesome cow was resolutely sold (by the farmer).' Given standard lexicalist assumptions, an object can be passivized only when it is an argument of a verb on which a passive morpheme is realized. In (9a), the object NP malssengmanhun so-lul 'the troublesome cow' is an argument of the main verb phala 'sell,' but not of the auxiliary chiwe 'do resolutely' or the passive auxiliary ciessta. Then it is not clear how we can account for the fact that the auxiliary ci affects the typical passive valence change, i.e., the primary object changing to the subject, and the subject changing to a PP complement.2 Another problem for the vp-complement analysis arises from the fact that emotion auxiliaries such as siph 'want' and silh 'dislike' can trigger a case alternation of the NP object which is directly governed by the main verb, as shown in (10) and (11): (10) a. Nay-ka sakwa-lul mekessta. I-Nom apple-Ace ate 'I ate an apple.' b. *Nay-ka sakwa-ka mekessta. I-Nom apple-Nom ate (11) a. Nay-ka sakwa-lul mekko siphta. I-Nom apple-Ace eat want 'I want to eat an apple.' b. Nay-ka sakwa-ka mekko siphta. I-Nom apple-Nom eat want The sentences in (10) show that the verb mek 'eat' assigns only accusative case to the NP object. However, when the auxiliary siph 'want' governs the verb mek 'eat,' nominative case can also be assigned to the object, as shown in (lib). If we assume the vp-complement analysis, the structure of
166
Chan Chung
the sentences in (11) is as in (12): (12) a. [s Nay-ka [VP [VP I-Nom b. [s Nay-ka [VP [VP I-Nom
sakwa-lul mekko] siphta]]. apple-Ace eat want sakwa-ka mekko] siphta]]. apple-Norn eat want
Under standard lexicalist assumptions, case assignment is a local phenomenon requiring the case assignee to be head-governed by the assignor. Following this assumption, Pollard and Sag (1987:143-144) suggest that the case assignment is one of the phenomena which observe the Locality Principle:3 there is no verb in any language that assigns case to some NP properly contained within one of its complements. A problem for the structure in (12b) is that it violates this principle. That is, to account for the fact that the auxiliary can change the case of the object NP from accusative to nominative, we need to assume that the auxiliary can assign nominative case to the NP that is properly contained within the VP complement. Another case alternation problem similar to the above arises from the "deemotion auxiliary" ha 'act like.'4 The auxiliary ha always governs an emotion verb and "deemotionalizes" it. That is, when ha attaches to an emotion verb, the whole predicate no longer has typical properties of an emotion verb. One of the effects of deemotionalization is that the combination does not allow nominative case to be assigned to the primary object of the main verb, as shown in (13) (cf. (11)): (13) Mary-ka sakwa-lul/*-ka mekko siphe hanta. M-Nom apple-Ace/-Nom eat want act like 'Mary acts like she wants to eat an apple.' In the vp-complement analysis, the structure of (13) is as in (14): (14) [s Mary-ka [VP [VP [VP sakwa-lul/*-ka mekko] siphe] hanta]]. M-Nom apple-Ace/-Nom eat want act like Again, in this analysis, it is impossible, without violating the Locality Principle, to account for the fact that the auxiliary ha takes as its complement a VP, which—if headed by a transitive verb—always contains an NP object with accusative case. The s-complement analysis in (5b) has the same problems that occur in the vp-complement analysis. That is, it is difficult to account for (i) the strong bond between the auxiliary and the governed verb, (ii) the fact that an object NP of the main verb can be passivized while the passive mor-
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
167
pheme is not realized on the verb, and (iii) the fact that an emotion or deemotion auxiliary can alter the case of the object NP of the main verb. In addition, the s-complement analysis has one more problem. In this analysis, the auxiliary has no direct access to the subject, so it is unclear how to treat honorific subject-verb agreement, as shown in (15): (15) a.
Halapeci-kkeyse ku chayk-ul ilke grandfather-Hon.Nom the book-Ace read po-si-essta. try as a test-Hon-past 'Grandfather tried reading the book.' b. #Halapeci-kkeyse ku chayk-ul ilke po-assta. grandfather-Hon.Nom the book-Ace read try as a test-past
In the s-complement analysis, the structure of (15a) is as in (16): (16) [s [s Halapeci-kkeyse ku chayk-ul ilke} grandfather-Hon.Nom the book-Ace read po-si-essta]. try as a test-Hon-past 'Grandfather tried reading the book.' The problem is that (16) also violates the Locality Principle in that it requires the postulation of a verb agreeing with an NP contained in its s-complement. In the following section, we discuss an alternative analysis that accounts for all the data given in this section without making them exceptions to the observed regularities. This alternative is the analysis in (5c). Here, the complement of the auxiliary is a simple verb rather than a VP or s. The auxiliary and the governed verb form a complex predicate, hence the term complex predicate analysis.
2.3. Complex Predicate Analysis Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994) introduce the mechanism of argument composition into the HPSG framework to account for the linear order of clause-final verbal sequences in German. The idea has been adopted by other HPSG researchers such as Kiss (1994), Gerdemann (1994), and Ryu (1993). The effect of argument composition is to "attract" the arguments of the governed verb to the argument list of the governing verb. In HPSG, argument composition is represented by structure sharing between the valence value of the governed verb and that of the governing
168
Chan Chung
verb.5 A simplified example from Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994) is as follows (here X 0 |<X 1 } ..., X B > is <X 0 , X l s . . . , X n ) ; that is, X^X^..., X B > means that X0 is the first element of some list of which < X 1 ? . . . , Xn> is the rest):
(17)
In (17), the SUBCAT value (the list of the subcategorized-for elements) of the transitive verb finden is and is tagged by DO. The verb itself is tagged by DG. The SUBCAT value of the auxiliary wird is DD|[2] (i.e., E3v|[II since HV is discharged. In the following sections, we will try to show how the problematic cases illustrated in the previous section are accounted for by the argument composition mechanism. Roughly, we propose that the main verb and auxiliaries form a constituent while the subject and complements of the main verb are sisters to the verbal cluster. Considering the fact that more than one auxiliary can occur in a sentence, we need at least the following LP constraint in (18) and the schematic ID rules in (19): (18) X < Head
(19) a. S -> Subj, Comp*, Head b. V -> V, Head The LP constraint in (18) simply states that a head must be preceded by any category. (19a) is an abbreviation of the Head-Subject-Complement Schema, which is basically the same as the rule suggested in Hale (1982) which states that a sentence consists of an arbitrary number of nonhead daughters (a subject and complements) and a lexical head. Rule (19b) states that v consists of a complement daughter v and a lexical head. Here, we treat the verbal clusters (the combination of a main verb and auxiliaries) as a kind of compound word. This analysis is consistent with the
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
169
compound analysis of auxiliaries in Cho (1988) and Sells (1991) even though they do not provide any specific mechanism for the compounding, especially with regard to the subcategorization frame of the compound verb. In our analysis, the analysis outlined in (20b) is given to the example in (20a): (20) a. Mary-ka ku chayk-ul ilke poko issta. Mary-Nom the book-Ace read try be in the process of 'Mary is giving the book a trial reading.'
No (1991) points out two facts suggesting that a main verb and an auxiliary must be considered to combine by syntactic principles rather than morphological word formation rules, and hence that the combination cannot be considered a syntactic word whose internal structure is invisible from the level of syntax. The first fact concerns bound morphemes called delimiters (e.g., -man 'only,' -to 'also,' -cocha 'even') which can intervene between an inflected main verb and an auxiliary (e.g., mekko-man issta (eat-only be-in-the-process-of) 'be only eating'). No (1991) points out that delimiters need to be viewed as a syntactic category since they occur not only after a verb but also after a noun or a postposition: i.e., their distribution is not confined to categories with verbal morphology. Then it is doubtful that syntactic material such as delimiters could intervene between a verb and the auxiliary if the verbal complex is a genuine syntactic word. No (1991) also points out that the combination of an auxiliary and its governed verb is wholly productive and semantically compositional. Productivity and compositionality are typical properties of syntactic rules, but not of word-formation rules.
170
Chan Chung
To accommodate the syntactic characteristics of the verbal complex, we need to assume the sort hierarchy in (21):
(21)
The hierarchy in (21) states that the sort sign has the two subsorts phrase and nonphrase. The sort nonphrase, in turn, has the two subsorts word and complex-word. The sort word corresponds to a syntactic unit whose internal structure is not visible from the level of syntax. It includes all kinds of inflected or derived simple words which belong to the subsort simple-word, and morphological compound words (e.g., blackboard) which belong to the subsort compound. The sort complex-word subsumes various kinds of so-called complex predicate constructions, e.g., the verbal noun construction discussed in Ryu (1993) and the auxiliary construction in question. It takes the attribute LEX-DTRS (lexical daughters) whose value is the new sort complex-word-structure with the features HEADWORD (the head word) and GOVERNEE (the governed word). The composition of objects of sort complex-word-struc is governed by syntactic principles and rules, as is the composition of subject and complement daughters with the head in a phrase. Complex words are licensed by the rule in (22), which states that a head word selects a nonphrase (a word or a complex word). Here the selection is made by the new valence feature "GOV," which takes as its value a singleton list containing the governed word.
(22)
Note that (22) must be regarded not as a word-formation rule but as a syntactic schema, in the same way that objects of sort phrase are constructed by a syntactic schema. For example, in this analysis, the valence features for the auxiliary iss 'be in the process of are as in (23), which embodies the assumption that the COMPS list of the verb selected by an auxiliary is inherited to the COMPS
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
171
list of the auxiliary:
(23)
iss SUBJ CD COMPS \2\ GOV
(23) states the following: (i) the auxiliary iss selects a verb which has VFORM (verb form) -ko; (ii) the COMPS value of the auxiliary is structureshared with that of its governee verb, represented by [U; and (iii) the SUBJ value of the auxiliary is structure-shared with that of the governee verb, represented by CD. The valence features of most auxiliaries in Korean are the same as (23).7 On this approach, the sentence in (20a) is analyzed as follows:8
(24)
172
Chan Chung
The first advantage of the complex predicate approach is that the strong cohesion effects within verbal clusters is directly captured in terms of a structural unit, and hence there is no need to postulate the kind of syntax and morphology mismatch assumed in No (1991). The second advantage is that there is no need for a mechanism such as move-a or a VP-flattening metarule as proposed by Pullum (1982) to account for the scrambling phenomena illustrated in (25): (25) a. Mary-ka ku chayk-ul ilke poko issta. Mary-Nom the book-Ace read try be in the process of 'Mary is giving the book a trial reading.' b. Ku chayk-ul Mary-ka ilke poko issta. the book-Ace Mary-Nom read try be in the process of In our analysis, the arguments of the verbal complex (i.e., the subject Mary-ka and the object ku chayk-ul) are all sisters of each other as shown in (24), and scrambling results from the lack of LP constraints among the arguments. The third advantage is that the problems raised in the vp-complement analysis disappear. In the rest of this section, we will show how the problems of passivization (e.g., (7) and (8)) and case alternation (e.g., (11) and (13)) are solved in the complex predicate analysis. For d-passivization shown in (7) and (8), we assume the following lexical entry for the auxiliary ci (cf. Kathol, 1994) (here, "©" denotes the list append operation):
(26)
The lexical description in (26) states the following: (i) the auxiliary ci takes a verb as its governee; (ii) the subject of the governee (i.e., NP Q ) is coindexed with the pp[uyhay], which is a value of the COMPS list of the auxiliary; (iii) the first element of the COMPS list which is the primary object of the governee (i.e., ENP) is structure-shared with the subject of the auxiliary; (iv) the rest of the COMPS list of the governee (i.e., [I]) is attracted to the COMPS list of the auxiliary.
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
173
On this approach, the analysis of the sentence in (7b) is as in (27): (27)
In (27), the primary object of the verb phala 'sell,' malssengmanhun so 'troublesome cow' (i.e., ONP), is attracted to the COMPS list of the auxiliary chiwu 'do resolutely,' percolates up to the mother node, and is attracted to the SUBJ list of the auxiliary ciessta (passive). The subject of the main verb phala, ku nongpwu 'the farmer' (i.e., HNP^), is attracted to the SUBJ list of the auxiliary chiwu, percolates up to the mother node, and is coindexed with the pp[uyhay] in the COMPS list of the auxiliary ciessta. Here the COMPS value of the auxiliary ciessta is just (pp[uyhay]^) since the rest of the COMPS list of the GOV minus the first element (the primary object) is the empty list. Before discussing case alternations triggered by emotion auxiliaries, we will briefly introduce the case assignment system utilized in this paper. Following Heinz and Matiasek (1994) and Pollard (1994), Yoo (1993)
174
Chan Chung
introduces the notion of "structural case" into HPSG to account for case assignment in Korean. The basic idea is that the case of some NFS is not lexically assigned, but is just specified as structural) in the lexicon and surfaces as either nominative or accusative depending on the syntactic context. The Case Principle for Korean proposed by Yoo is as follows: (28) Case Principle: A structural NP which is a daughter of a phrase a is [nom] if it is a SUBJ-DTR of a, and [ace] if it is a COMP-DTR of a. (Yoo, 1993:189) Case Principle (28) states that if structural case is assigned to an NP, it is realized as nominative case or accusative case when the NP is a subject daughter or a complement daughter, respectively. Yoo (1993) also assumes another type of case, namely, lexical case, to account for some other idiosyncratic case marking phenomena. In Korean, as mentioned already, certain verbs such as (de)emotion verbs directly assign nominative or accusative case to an NP. Such special cases are exempted from the principle stated in (28). Let us consider the following emotion verb construction as an example of lexical case: (29) a. Nay-ka sakwa-ka cohta. I-Nom apple-Norn like 'I like apples.' b. * Nay-ka sakwa-lul cohta. I-Nom apple-Ace like The valence structure for the emotion verb coh 'like' is as follows: (30)
In (30), nominative case is directly assigned to the complement NP sakwa 'apple' by the lexical entry, while structural case is assigned to the subject NP na 'I,' which is realized as bearing nominative case via the Case Principle. For case alternation triggered by emotion auxiliaries, we assume two kinds of lexical entries for emotion auxiliaries as in (31):9 (31)
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
175
The feature structure in (3la) indicates that the COMPS value of the governed verb is directly attracted to the COMPS value of the emotion auxiliary. This lexical entry is responsible for sentences like (11 a). In (3la), the COMPS list of the governee is structure-shared as a whole with that of the auxiliary, and hence structural case assigned to the object of the governee is inherited to the COMPS list of the auxiliary without any change. Then by the Case Principle in (28), accusative case is assigned to the object NP. In contrast, the lexical entry in (31b) indicates (i) that the first NP of the COMPS list of the governee has structural case (i.e., NpUfr]^) and is coindexed with the first NP of the COMPS list of the auxiliary, (ii) that nominative case is assigned to the coindexed NP in the COMPS list of the auxiliary (i.e., ^[nom]^, and (iii) that the rest of the COMPS list of the governee, represented by GO, is attracted to the COMPS list of the auxiliary. This lexical entry is responsible for sentences such as (lib), which contain an object with nominative case.10 An example of another case alternation phenomenon is in (13), which is due to the deemotion auxiliary ha 'act like.' Here due to the deemotion auxiliary ha, the case of the object must be accusative even though it is governed by the emotion auxiliary siphe 'want.' To account for this phenomenon, we assume the following lexical entry for ha:
(32)
The feature structure in (32) indicates (i) that if the auxiliary ha takes as its governee a verb whose first COMPS value is an NP (the primary object represented by NP 0 ), the NP is coindexed with the first NP in the COMPS list, (ii) that accusative case is assigned to the coindexed NP in the COMPS list of the auxiliary (i.e., Np[acc]s), and (iii) that if such an NP (primary object) does not exist in the COMPS list of the governee, then the whole COMPS list, represented by CD, is attracted to the COMPS list of the auxiliary. In the complex predicate analysis, the COMPS value of the governed verb is directly accessible from the governing verb, and hence the governing verb can select a certain category as a governee and specify the case alternation of the governee's complement. Due to this selectability, we can exclude the ill-formed sentence in (13), which has an NP complement with nominative case, without violating the Locality Principle. As shown above, the emotion auxiliary can change the case of the primary object of the governed verb from accusative to nominative. However, when emotion auxiliaries such as siph 'want' govern the deemotion
176
Chan Chung
auxiliary ha 'act like,' the case of the primary object cannot be altered to nominative, as shown in (33): (33) a. Nay-ka sakwa-lul coha hako siphta. I-Nom apple-Ace like act like want 'I want to act like I like apples.' b. *Nay-ka sakwa-ka coha hako siphta. I-Nom apple-Norn like act like want From this fact, we may assume that the case alternation triggered by emotion auxiliaries is possible only when the case of the primary object of the governed verb is not lexically specified, i.e., only when its case is structurally assigned. Our approach correctly predicts this fact. The structure for (33a) is as follows: (34)
The lexical description indicated by node (a) above is an instance of (3la). The lexical entry in (31b) is not applicable to this node because (31b) is the lexical entry for the emotion auxiliary which takes as its governee a verb whose complement NP has structural case. That is, the lexical entry in node (a) has to take as its governee a verb whose complement NP is accusative,
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
177
which is lexically assigned by the deemotion auxiliary ha 'act like' in (32). Therefore, the ill-formed sentence in (33b) is never licensed on our approach.
3. LONG-DISTANCE SCRAMBLING AND ARGUMENT COMPOSITION In the previous section, we discussed the auxiliary construction, proposing that the notion of argument composition is crucial to account for this construction. In this section, we extend the theory of the auxiliary construction, proposing that the mechanism of argument composition can be extended to treat word order variation facts in complex clauses. Instances of complex clauses include the VP complement constructions (e.g., the control, raising, and ha -causative constructions) and embedded clause constructions in which the matrix verb takes an s as its complement. In Korean, arguments of the embedded verb can be interleaved with arguments of the matrix verb, as shown in (35) and (36): (35)
VP Complement Construction a. Mary-ka John-hanthey [VP ku chayk-ul ilkulako] seltukhayssta. M-Nom J-Dat the book-Ace read persuaded 'Mary persuaded John to read the book.' b. Ku chayk-ul Mary-ka John-hanthey ilkulako seltukhayssta. the book-Ace M-Nom J-Dat read persuaded c. Mary-ka ku chayk-ul John-hanthey ilkulako seltukhayssta. M-Nom the book-Ace J-Dat read persuaded
(36)
Embedded Clause Construction a. Nay-ka John-hanthey [s Mary-ka ku chayk-ul ilkesstako] I-Nom J-Dat M-Nom the book-Ace read malhay cwu-essta. tell as a favor for-past 'I told John that Mary read the book as a favor for him.' b. Ku chayk-ul nay-ka John-hanthey Mary-ka ilkesstako the book-Ace I-Nom J-Dat M-Nom read malhay cwu-essta. tell as a favor for-past c. Na-nun ku chayk-ul John-hanthey Mary-ka ilkesstako I-Top the book-Ace J-Dat M-Nom read malhay cwu-essta. tell as a favor for-past
178
Chan Chung
The goal of this section is to explore the syntactic mechanism(s) with which such scrambling facts can be accounted for. What is proposed is that scrambling out of VP complements or embedded clauses is not an instance of an unbounded dependency construction commonly handled via the SLASH feature in GPSG and HPSG, or A-bar movement in GB, but rather a local phenomenon treated by argument composition. The organization of this section is as follows. In section 3.1, we discuss evidence for a VP constituent in Korean and various data showing different scrambling properties of the different vp-complement constructions. In section 3.2, we propose our own theory of word order variation in vp-complement constructions through the mechanisms of argument composition and lexical rules. We also extend our theory to account for scrambling out of a complement clause and adjunct scrambling. 3.1. VP-Complement Constructions in Korean
3.1.1. VP CONSTITUENTS IN KOREAN In this paper, we assume that Korean has a flat clause structure and that clause-internal scrambling results from the relative freedom of linear precedence constraints among the nonhead constituents at the sentence level. Then the question arises whether VP constituents exist at all in Korean. Even though we assume that Korean does not have a VP node that makes the clausal structure hierarchical, it does not necessarily follow that Korean does not have any VP constituents at all. A weaker assumption is to deny the existence of a subject-predicate schema, such as the one in (37): (37)
In fact, control and raising verbs can be shown to subcategorize for a VP. In such cases, a VP is one of the complements of a particular lexical head and thus is a sister to the head. Accordingly the sentence in (35a) is licensed by the flat schema in (38): (38) Head-Subiect-Complement Schema:
Schema (38) states that a head which is a nonphrase (i.e., a simple word or complex word) combines simultaneously with the subject and complements
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
179
to form a complete sentence. Here, the head's GOV value is the empty list, and thus any GOV value will have to be discharged within a verbal complex. It is not a new idea to assume that only a certain type of VP constituent exists in a language. For instance, the normal order in a finite clause in Welsh is verb-subject, as shown in (39): (39) Gwelodd Emrys y ddraig. saw Emrys the dragon 'Emrys saw the dragon.' However, the normal order in a nonfinite clause is subject-verb, as illustrated in (40): (40) Disgwyliodd Emrys [ i Gwyn weld Megan]. expected Emrys to Gwyn see Megan 'Emrys expected Gwyn to see Megan.' To account for these facts about Welsh word order and related phenomena, Borsley (1989) proposes that a finite clause in this language is licensed by the schema in (41), which states that a sentence consists of a lexical head and an arbitrary number of complement daughters, while a nonfinite clause is licensed by the schema in (37).
(41) S -> V, C* Thus, on this account, the structure of (40) is as follows: (42) [s Disgwyliodd Emrys [s- i [s Gwyn [VP weld Megan]]]]. expected Emrys to Gwyn see Megan 'Emrys expected Gwyn to see Megan.' Kuh (1990) independently claims that Tamil has a flat finite clause structure but has a nonfinite VP constituent. In Tamil, a subject, an object, and a verb can occur in any order when the object is marked with accusative case. To account for this freedom of word order, Kuh assumes that Tamil has a flat clause structure and has no rule equivalent to (37). On the other hand, infinitival VPS do exist, for instance, as complements of control verbs such as anuppi 'send' as shown in (43): (43) a. Naan raaman-e [VP kkannan-e ppaakk-a] anuppineen. I-Nom Raman-Ace Kannan-Acc see-Inf sent-l.SG 'I sent Raman to see Kannan.' b. Naan [VP kkannan-e ppaakk-a] raaman-e anuppineen. I-Nom Kannan-Acc see-Inf Raman-Ace sent-l.SG c. *Kkannan-e naan ppaakk-a raaman-e anuppineen. Kannan-Acc I-Nom see-Inf Raman-Ace sent-l.SG
180
Chan Chung
In this construction, as shown in (43c), the argument within the VP complement cannot permute with any of the control verb's sisters, even though the subject of the control verb, the controller raaman-e, and the VP complement can occur in any order. Kuh states that this fact cannot be explained satisfactorily unless we assume that an infinitival VP category exists in this construction and that the sentences in (43a,b) are licensed by the rule in (41). Then what about Korean? Is there any evidence showing the existence of VP constituents? There seem to be at least two pieces of evidence that suggest the existence of VP constituents as complements of control and raising verbs. First, let us consider examples (44b) and (44c), where the verbal forms ku chayk-ul ilkulako 'to read the book' and ilkulako 'read' are afterthought expressions, respectively. (44) a. Mary-ka John-hanthey ku chayk-ul ilkulako seltukhayssta. M-Nom J-Dat the book-Ace read persuaded 'Mary persuaded John to read the book.' b. *Mary-ka John-hanthey ku chayk-ul seltukhayssta, ilkulako. M-Nom J-Dat the book-Ace persuaded read c. Mary-ka John-hanthey seltukhayssta, [VP ku chayk-ul ilkulako]. M-Nom J-Dat persuaded the book-Ace read In Korean, a lexical expression cannot be used as an afterthought expression, and thus the sentence in (44b) in which the embedded verb ilkulako 'read' alone is used as an afterthought expression is not acceptable. This strongly suggests that, in (44c), the embedded verb and its direct object from a phrasal constituent which is eligible to occur as an afterthought expression.11 Another piece of evidence for VP constituents is provided by the raising construction. Let us consider the examples in (45): (45) a.
Mary-ka John-ul New York-ey isstako mitnunta. M-Nom J-Acc New York-at stay believe 'Mary believes John to be/stay in New York.' b. ??/*New York-ey Mary-ka John-ul isstako mitnunta. New York-at M-Nom J-Acc stay believe c. ?? Mary-ka New York-ey John-ul isstako mitnunta. M-Nom New York-at J-Acc stay believe
In the raising construction, a constituent (New York-ey) directly governed by the embedded verb (isstako 'exist') cannot be interleaved with arguments (Mary-ka and John-ul) that are directly governed by the raising verb
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
181
(mitnunta 'believe'), parallel to the control construction in Tamil (cf. (43)). As proposed in Kuh (1990), this fact can be straightforwardly accounted for if we assume that New York-ey isstako 'to be/stay in New York' forms a VP constituent. From the discussions above, we conclude that even though Korean does not possess the subject-head schema in (37), it nevertheless has nonfmite VP constituents. In the following sections, we will discuss various kinds of vp-complement constructions such as the control, raising, and ha -causative constructions, focusing on their scrambling properties. 3.1.2. CONTROL CONSTRUCTION An example of the control construction in Korean is given in (35), repeated here as (46): (46)
Mary-ka John-hanthey [VP ku chayk-ul ilkulako] seltukhayssta. M-Nom J-Dat the book-Ace read persuaded 'Mary persuaded John to read the book.'
Here the control verb seltukhayssta 'persuaded' subcategorizes for a VP complement and selects its verb form. In the HPSG framework, the lexical entry of the object-control verb is as in (47), where the SUBJ value of the VP complement (NPtsfr-]^) is coindexed with the Np[dat]^ complement:12 (47)
Here, it is important to realize that not the whole SYNSEM value of the subject of the VP complement is structure-shared with the controller in (47). Otherwise, the subject of the VP would also have to be a N?[dat]. In the context of the current discussion, scrambling facts are of particular interest. As shown in (48), the order among the subject, the controller, and the VP complement is free: (48) a. Mary-ka [VP ku chayk-ul ilkulako] John-hanthey seltukhayssta. M-Nom the book-Ace read J-Dat persuaded 'Mary persuaded John to read the book.' b. John-hanthey Mary-ka [VP ku chayk-ul ilkulako] seltukhayssta. J-Dat M-Nom the book-Ace read persuaded
182
Chan Chung
c. John-hanthey [VP ku chayk-ul ilkulako] Mary-ka seltukhayssta. J-Dat the book-Ace read M-Nom persuaded d. [VP Ku chayk-ul ilkulako} John-hanthey Mary-ka seltukhayssta. the book-Ace read J-Dat M-Nom persuaded More interestingly, an argument of a governed verb (e.g., ilkulako 'read' in (48a)) can also be scrambled with arguments of the control verb, as shown in (49): (49) a. Ku chayk-ul Mary-ka John-hanthey ilkulako seltukhayssta. the book-Ace M-Nom J-Dat read persuaded 'Mary persuaded John to read the book.' b. Mary-ka ku chayk-ul John-hanthey ilkulako seltukhayssta. M-Nom the book-Ace J-Dat read persuaded However, the sentence in (50), where the object (ku chayk-ul 'the book') of the governed verb (ilkulako 'read') linearly follows the verb, is ungrammatical:13 (50)
*Mary-ka John-hanthey ilkulako ku chayk-ul seltukhayssta. M-Nom J-Dat read the book-Ace persuaded 'Mary persuaded John to read the book.'
Also note that the control verb construction allows the following scrambling possibilities: (51) a. Ku chayk-ul John-hanthey ilkulako Mary-ka seltukhayssta. the book-Ace J-Dat read M-Nom persuaded 'Mary persuaded John to read the book.' b. Ku chayk-ul Mary-ka ilkulako John-hanthey seltukhayssta. the book-Ace M-Nom read J-Dat persuaded In (51), the string ku chayk-ul ilkulako 'to read the book' does not constitute a VP complement, nor do seltukhayssta 'persuaded' and ilkulako 'to read' form a verbal complex. This construction will be analyzed in section 3.2.1.1.
3.1.3. RAISING-TO-OBJECT CONSTRUCTION14 In section 3.1.2, we showed that an argument of a governed verb can be scrambled with arguments of the governing verb when the governing verb is a control verb. However, when the governing verb is a raising verb, scrambling seems to be more restricted. The following setence is a typical
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
183
example of the raising-to-object construction: (52) Mary-ka John-ul [VP cengcikhatako] mitnunta. M-Nom J-Acc be honest believe 'Mary believes John to be honest.' In HPSG, a raising verb takes as its complements a controller NP and a VP whose subject is identical to the controller NP (cf. Pollard and Sag, 1987, 1994, for English, and Yoo, 1993, for Korean, among others). It differs from a control verb in that the latter assigns a semantic role (e.g., the role of PERSUADEE in (47)) to the controller, whereas the former does not assign any semantic role to the controller. The other important difference is that in the control construction, the controller and the understood subject of the VP complement are coindexed (roughly, they are only semantically identical), whereas in the raising construction, the whole SYNSEM values of the controller and the understood subject of the VP are structure-shared (i.e., they are identical syntactically as well as semantically). On this approach, the lexical entry of the raising verb mit 'believe' is as follows:
(53)
As for scrambling in the raising construction, let us consider the following examples: (54) a.
b. c. d. e.
Mary-ka John-ul [vp New York-ey isstako] mitnunta. M-Nom J-Acc New York-at stay believe 'Mary believes John to be/stay in New York.' John-ul Mary-ka [yp New York-ey isstako} mitnunta. J-Acc M-Nom New York-at stay believe John-ul [VP New York-ey isstako] Mary-ka mitnunta. J-Acc New York-at stay M-Nom believe ??/*Mary-ka [VP New York-ey isstako] John-ul mitnunta. M-Nom New York-at stay J-Acc believe ??/*[Vp New York-ey isstako} John-ul Mary-ka mitnunta. New York-at stay J-Acc M-Nom believe
The above examples show that the subject, the controller and the VP complement can be scrambled as long as the controller precedes the VP
184
Chan Chung
complement. These scrambling possibilities in the raising construction show a sharp contrast with those in the control construction, since such a restriction does not exist in the latter (cf. (48a,d)). Also, an argument of the embedded verb is only marginally allowed to occur among the argument(s) of the raising verb, as shown in the examples in (55), which are variations of (54a). Such a restriction does not exist in the control construction (cf. (49)). (55) a. I!/*New York-ey Mary-ka John-ul isstako mitnunta. New York-at M-Nom J-Acc stay believe 'Mary believes John to be/stay in New York.' b. ?? Mary-ka New York-ey John-ul isstako mitnunta. M-Nom New York-at J-Acc stay believe As with control constructions, the embedded verb must follow its argument, as shown in (56) (cf. (50)): (56) * Mary-ka John-ul isstako New York-ey mitnunta. M-Nom J-Acc stay New York-at believe 'Mary believes John to be/stay in New York.' To summarize, scrambling possibilities in the raising construction are more restricted than those in the control construction. It seems that a constituent within the VP complement of the raising verb can be scrambled with the constituents outside the VP only with great difficulty, if at all. Also, the controller in the raising construction must precede the complement VP. This construction will be analyzed in section 3.2.1.2. In the following section, we will disucss another kind of VP complement construction, involving the ha -causative construction, which differs from either of the preceding ones in its scrambling properties. 3.1.4. //a-CAUSATivE CONSTRUCTION In Kang (1988), No (1991), and Chung (1993) among others, the causative verb ha 'cause' is considered as an auxiliary verb. However, this does not seem to be correct because there is an obvious difference between the causative verb ha and ordinary auxiliary verbs such as siph 'want,' as shown in (57) and (58): (57) a.
Mary-ka John-hanthey/-ul ku chayk-ul ilkkey hayssta. M-Nom J-Dat/-Acc the book-Ace read caused 'Mary caused John to read the book.' b. (?) John-hanthey/-ul ku-chayk-ul ilkkey Mary-ka hayssta. J-Dat/-Acc the book-Ace read M-Nom caused
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
185
(58) a. Nay-ka ku chayk-ul ilkko siphta. I-Nom the book-Ace read want 'I want to read the book.' b. *Ku chayk-kul ilkko nay-ka siphta. the book-Ace read I-Nom want The sentence in (57b) shows that the causative verb hayssta 'caused' can be separated from the governed verb ilkkey 'read' by the main verb subject Mary-ka, especially when the subject has focal stress. However, the auxiliary verb siphta 'want' in (58) can never be separated from the governed verb ilkko 'read' as discussed in section 2. This difference suggests that causative ha has to be considered distinct from the category of auxiliaries. Syntactically, there are three different instances of ha according to the case borne by the causee, as shown in (59): (59) a. Mary-ka John-i ku chayk-ul ilkkey hayssta. M-Nom J-Nom the book-Ace read caused 'Mary caused John to read the book.' b. Mary-ka John-ul ku chayk-ul ilkkey hayssta. M-Nom J-Acc the book-Ace read caused c. Mary-ka John-hanthey ku chayk-ul ilkkey hayssta. M-Nom J-Dat the book-Ace read caused The causee NP is marked nominative in (59a), accusative in (59b), and dative in (59c). Semantically, these fall into two classes, (59a) and (59b) on the one hand, and (59c) on the other. Kang (1988) observes that ha in (59c) requires that Mary did something directly to John so that John should read the book, e.g., by intentionally forcing him. That is, (59c) cannot be appropriately uttered in a situation in which Mary unintentionally recommended a book to John, e.g., she recommended a book to the others without noticing John's presence, but somehow John was motivated to read the book. In contrast, ha in (59a,b) does not necessarily require Mary's action to be directed to John and can be appropriately uttered in the situation mentioned above. This semantic distinction seems to correspond to the distinction between the control and raising constructions discussed in sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. That is, in (59c), ha directly assigns a causee role to John, as a control verb assigns a semantic role to the controller, whereas in (59a,b), ha does not assign such a role to John, as a raising verb does not assign a semantic role to the controller. This classification for ha as a control vs a raising verb is straightforwardly
186
Chan Chung
expressed in the following lexical descriptions:
(60) a.
The sentence in (59a) is licensed by (60a), which indicates that ha takes a sentence as its complement. Here John has nominative case because it is the subject of the s complement.15 Also note that no role is assigned to the subject of the s complement, John, and thus there is no requirement to construe John as causally affected by the causer's action. The sentence in (59b) is licensed by (60b), which indicates that ha takes as its complements an NP with structural case and a VP whose subject's SYNSEM value, represented by DO, is structure-shared with that of the complement NP. As in (60a), this type of ha assigns no semantic role to the complement NP, and again nothing requires John to be construed as causally affected. The sentence in (59c) is licensed by (60c), which states that this instance of ha takes a dative NP and a VP as its complements. Unlike the other types of ha, here a causee role is assigned to the NP complement. Since we are now discussing vp-complement constructions, let us focus on (59b,c) and (60b,c). As already suggested, the lexical entry in (60b) looks the same as that of a raising verb (cf. (53)), and the lexical entry in (60c) resembles that of a control verb (cf. (47)). In other words, in our analysis, the ha -causative construction with an accusative controller (accusative
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
187
/ia-causative henceforth) forms a natural class with the raising construction, while the ha -causative construction with the dative controller (dative /za-causative henceforth) forms a natural class with the control construction. This classification is also supported by certain scrambling data. As illustrated in (61), the dative /ifl-causative allows the causee to occur between the VP complement and ha, as the control construction does (cf. (48a)): (61) (l)Mary-ka [VP ku chayk-ul ilkkey] John-hanthey hayssta. M-Nom the book-Ace read J-Dat caused 'Mary caused John to read the book.' Even though (61) is slightly marginal compared with the counterpart in the control construction, it is acceptable to most speakers, especially when focal stress is given to the causee. The dative /w-causative and control constructions also exhibit similarities of behavior in other types of scrambling, as illustrated in (62): (62) a. Ku chayk-ul Mary-ka John-hanthey ilkkey hayssta. the book-Ace M-Nom J-Dat read caused 'Mary caused John to read the book.' b. Mary-ka ku chayk-ul John-hanthey ilkkey hayssta. M-Nom the book-Ace J-Dat read caused That is, in both constructions, an argument of the embedded verb is allowed to intermingle with arguments of the matrix verb (cf. (49)). In contrast, the accusative ha -causative and raising constructions show the same pattern of scrambling in that neither allows the controller to occur between the VP complement and the matrix verb, as shown in (63) (cf. (54d)): (63)
*Mary-ka [VP ku chayk-ul ilkkey] John-ul hayssta. M-Nom the book-Ace read J-Acc caused 'Mary caused John to read the book.'
However, the accusative ha -causative construction differs from the raising construction in that it also has some of the scrambling properties of the control construction. As is shown in (64), an argument of the embedded verb (cip-ulo) occurs among the arguments of the ha verb (cf. (49)): (64) a. Mary-ka cip-ulo John-ul tolakakey hayssta. M-Nom home-to J-Acc go back caused 'Mary caused John to go back home.' b. Cip-ulo Mary-ka John-ul tolakakey hayssta. home-to M-Nom J-Acc go back caused
188
Chan Chung
The important aspects of scrambling discussed in this section are summarized in (65): (65)
Placement of the matrix subject between the embedded verb and the matrix verb Placement of a complement of the embedded verb between the embedded verb and the matrix verb Scrambling between the VP complement and the controller Scrambling of an argument of the embedded verb with the argument(s) of the matrix verb
Accusative Control Raising ha -causative Yes Yes Yes
Dative ha -causative Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
In the next section, we will propose that scrambling out of VP complements should not be considered an unbounded dependency construction, but instead as a local phenomenon to be treated via argument composition and lexical rules. 3.2. Argument Composition, Lexical Rules, and Word Order Variation in Complex Clauses The organization of this section is as follows. In section 3.2.1, we suggest how scrambling in various vp-complement constructions is appropriately handled via argument composition and lexical rules. Here we also propose some LP constraints to account for restrictions on scrambling. In sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, we extend this analysis to account for scrambling in the s-complement construction and adjunct scrambling, respectively. 3.2.1. ANALYSES OF VP-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTIONS 3.2.1.1. Control and dative ha-causative constructions. Following Pollard and Sag (1994), Yoo (1993) assumes that vp-complement constructions in Korean have a flat structure. For example, (66) is the structure of the
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
189
control construction (e.g., (46)) which is licensed by the lexical entry in (47) for the control verb seltukhayssta 'persuaded':
(66)
The flat structure in (66) can account for scrambling among the NP 0 , NP E , and VP (e.g., (48)). However, it cannot account for the fact that the direct object ku chayk-ul 'the book,' which is governed by the embedded verb ilkulako 'read,' can be scrambled with arguments directly governed by the main verb seltukhayessta 'persuaded' (e.g., (49) and (51)). To account for this, we propose that a control verb like seltukhayssta 'persuaded' can take as its complement not only the VP but also the embedded verb ilkulako 'read.' When the control verb takes a verb as its complement, the complement(s) of the complement verb is (are) attracted to the COMPS list of the control verb, as in the auxiliary constructions. To this end, we propose that a control verb that takes a VP as its complement is related to the other control verb that takes a v as its complement by the lexical rule in (67).16
(67)
The lexical rule in (67) takes as input a lexical entry selecting a VP complement and a controller NP^, and gives as output a lexical entry that requires the controller, a verb, and the verb's complements). Thus, in the output lexical entry, the COMPS list of the complement verb represented by ID is attracted to the COMPS list of the control verb.
190
Chan Chung
On our approach, the sentence in (46) also can be analyzed as in (68a), which is licensed by the lexical entry of the control verb in (68b). (68b) is an instance of the output entry of the lexical rule in (67).
(68) a.
Then, the fact that an argument of the embedded verb occurs among arguments of the main verb in (49) and (51) is accounted for by the flat analysis illustrated in structure (68a). Note that the lexical rule in (67) is schematized to account for scrambling in the subject-control construction shown in (69) and (70): (69) a. Mary-ka John-hanthey [VP ku chayk-ul pilyecwu-kesstako] M-Nom J-Dat the book-Ace lend-will yaksokhayssta. promised 'Mary promised John to lend the book.' b. Mary-ka ku chayk-ul John-hanthey pilyecwu-kesstako M-Nom the book-Ace J-Dat lend-will yaksokhayssta. promised c. Ku chayk-ul John-hanthey pilyecwu-kesstako the book-Ace J-Dat lend-will Mary-ka yaksokhayssta. M-Nom promised (70) a. Mary-ka [w ku chayk-ul ilkulyeko] sitohayssta. M-Nom the book-Ace read tried 'Mary tried to read the book.' b. Ku chayk-ul Mary-ka ilkulyeko sitohayssta. the book-Ace M-Nom read tried c. Ku chayk-ul ilkulyeko Mary-kay sitohayssta. the book-Ace read M-Nom tried
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
191
That is, rule (67) states (i) that the verb optionally selects the NP complement, which is indicated by the parentheses (NPS), and (ii) that the understood subject of the VP complement is coindexed with either the subject or the complement of the control verb. Then the lexical entry yaksokhayssta 'promised' in (71), for instance, feeds the lexical rule in (67), producing an entry which licenses the flat structure:
(71)
The control construction differs from the auxiliary constructions discussed in section 2, in that the control construction allows syntactic material to intervene between the governed verb and the control verb, while such an intervention is not allowed in the auxiliary construction. This difference is reflected in the constituent structure. In the auxiliary construction, the governed verb and the auxiliary verb form a complex word. In the control construction, in contrast, the governed verb and the control verb do not form a verbal complex, as shown in (68a), and thus syntactic material can intervene between the control verb and its complement verb as shown in (51), (69c), and (70c). As shown in (50), however, an embedded verb in the control construction must follow its complement. This generalization is captured by the following LP constraint which instantiates the clause-final occurrence of heads in Korean: (72)
SYNSEMDG <
[COMPS < . . . Q] .. . >]
As shown in table (65), the dative ha -causative construction has the same scrambling possibilities as the control construction. This fact is captured because in our analysis, the dative ha -causative verb is essentially treated as a control verb. It can feed the lexical rule in (67), producing an entry which licenses flat structures such as (68a). 3.2.1.2. Raising-to-object construction. As discussed in section 3.1.3, the raising construction has more restricted scrambling possibilities than the
192
Chan Chung
control construction. In the former, an argument within the VP complement cannot scramble with arguments outside the VP, and the controller cannot occur between governed verb and the raising verb (e.g., (54d,e) and (55), respectively). The absence of scrambling out of the VP complement in this construction follows from the fact that a raising verb does not feed the lexical rule in (67). In the input entry of the lexical rule, the controller has its own semantic role. As shown in (53), however, the controller in the raising verb does not have its own semantic role (no role of BELIEVEE in (53)). Thus (53) is not a licit lexical entry for the input, and the lexical rule in (67) does not allow it to have the output counterpart. Under this assumption, the structure of the raising sentence in (54a) is analyzed only as in (73):
(73)
Here New York-ey cannot scramble out of the VP complement since it is confined within the VP. To account for the fact that the controller cannot occur after the complement VP in the raising construction, we assume the following LP constraint, which is suggested by Yoo (1993):
(74)
[SYNSEMH] < [SUBJ ]
The LP constraint in (74) states that a subject must precede the category which selects it as a subject. Like the LP constraint in (72), the LP constraint in (74) is another instantiation of the head-final property of Korean. In (54d,e) John-ul is the subject of the VP New York-ey isstako 'to stay in New York' but does not precede the VP. Thus, these sentences violate (74). It is important to note that the LP constraint in (74) does not apply in the case of the control construction. The constraint in (74) applies only when the whole SYNSEM value of the controller and the subject of the VP
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
193
complement is the same. As shown in (68b), however, the controller and the understood subject of the verbal complement of the control verb are just coindexed, and the whole SYNSEM value cannot be the same because of the case mismatch. Hence, in the control construction, (74) does not apply, and the controller is allowed to linearly follow the verbal complement, Finally, the subject of the raising verb can occur between the complement VP and the raising verb, as shown in (54c). This is a consequence of the flat analysis shown in (73).17 3.2.1.3. Accusative ha-causative construction. As discussed in section 3.1.4, the scrambling possibilities of the accusative ha -causative construction are not the same as those of the control or raising construction. On the one hand, that variant of ha shares properties of a raising verb in that the controller cannot occur after the governed verb (e.g., (63)), but on the other hand, it also behaves like a control verb in that an argument within the VP complement can scramble with arguments outside the VP (e.g., (64)). On our approach, all the properties of the accusative ha -causative fall out naturally if we assume that this type of ha has the lexical description in (75), which is a revision of (60b):
(75)
This descrition resembles the output of the lexical rule in (67). In our account, however, there is no lexical entry corresponding to an input for (67), and therefore (75) must simply be listed separately. The lexical entry in (75) licenses the structure in (76b) for the sentence in (76a) (= (59b)): (76) a. Mary-ka John-ul ku chayk-ul ilkkey hayssta. M-Nom J-Acc the book-Ace read caused 'Mary caused John to read the book.'
194
Chan Chung
In (76b), John-ul and the subject of the verb ilkkey 'read' have the same SYNSEM value, represented as SNP. Thus, by the LP constraint in (74), John-ul must precede ilkkey. The sentence in (63) is unacceptable since it violates this LP constraint. Also in (76b), ku chayk-ul 'the book' must precede ilkkey because of the LP constraint in (72), which states that a complement must precede the category which subcategorizes for it. Our analysis correctly predicts that all permutations of three NPS and a complement verb are possible as long as these two LP constraints are observed.
3.2.2. ANALYSES OF S-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTIONS In this section, we will extend the idea of scrambling via argument composition further, proposing that scrambling out of an s-complement also can be accounted for by the same mechanism. In Korean, arguments of an embedded clause also can scramble with arguments of the main verb, as shown in (77) and (78):18, 19 (77) a. Nay-ka [s Mary-ka ku chayk-ul ilkesstako] sayngkakhayssta. I-Nom M-Nom the book-Ace read thought 'I thought Mary read the book.' b. Ku chayk-ul nay-ka Mary-ka ilkesstako sayngkakhayssta. the book-Ace I-Nom M-Nom read thought (78) a.
Mary-ka motun salam-hanthey [s John-i ku mwuncey-lul M-Nom all people-Dat J-Nomthe problem-Ace haykyelhaysstako} malhayssta. resolved told 'Mary told all the people that John resolved the problem.' b. (?)Ku mwuncey-lul, Mary-ka, motwun salam-hanthey, John-i the problem-Ace M-Nom all people-Dat J-Nom haykyelhaysstako malhayssta. resolved told
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
195
c. ? Mary-ka, ku mwuncey-lul, motwun salam-hanthey, John-i M-Nom the problem-Ace all people-Dat J-Nom haykyelhaysstako malhayssta. resolved told In our analysis, arguments of the head of the embedded clause can be attracted to the COMPS lists of the matrix verb. To this end, we posit the following lexical rule which is similar to that in (67):
(79)
The input description in (79) takes a sentence as its complement. When the element represented by GD is the empty list, the input matches a lexical entry that takes only a sentence as its complement (e.g., sayngkakhayssta 'thought' in (77)). When H] is realized as {NP[dat]}, the input entry matches a lexical entry that takes both an Np[dat] and an s as its complement (e.g., malhayssta 'told' in (78)). In contrast, the output description of (79) takes a verb as its complement in addition to S, and the subject and complement of the complement verb (represented by NP[nom] 0 and GO) are attracted and appended to the COMPS lists of the matrix verb. See section 4.1 for motivation of the idea to let the embedded subject be attracted to the matrix verbs' COMPS list, rather than to the SUBJ list. Instances of scrambling as in (77b) and (78b,c) are licensed by output entries of the lexical rule. For example, (80a) is the structure of (77b)
196
Chan Chung
licensed by (80b):20 (80) a.
Note that the rule in (79) allows arbitrarily many arguments of the embedded clause to scramble out. This is in fact possible in Korean, as shown below:21 (81) a. Nay-ka [s Mary-ka ku chayk-ul John-hanthey pilyecwuesstako] I-Nom M-Nom the book-Ace J-Dat lent sayngkakhayssta. thought 'I thought that Mary lent the book to John.' b. Ku chayk-ul John-hanthey nay-ka Mary-ka pilyecwuesstako the book-Ace J-Dat I-Nom M-Nom lent sayngkakhayssta. thought c. John-hanthey ku chayk-ul nay-ka Mary-ka pilyecwuesstako J-Dat the book-Ace I-Nom M-Nom lent sayngkakhayssta. thought
3.23. ADJUNCT SCRAMBLING In previous sections, we focused only on scrambled arguments. In Korean, however, an adjunct that modifies a verbal expression can also scramble with arguments, as shown in (82b,c).
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
197
(82) a. Ku kongwen-eyse Mary-ka John-ul mannassta. the park-at M-Nom J-Acc met 'Mary met John at the park.' b. Mary-ka ku kongwen-eyse John-ul mannassta. M-Nom the park-at J-Acc met c. Mary-ka John-ul ku kongwen-eyse mannassta. M-Nom J-Acc the park-at met In this section, we will discuss how to handle scrambled adjuncts. We have already assumed a flat structure for a sentence. Hence it is natural to posit that an adjunct is also licensed by the flat structure. In order to account for scrambling among complements and adjuncts in German, Kasper (1994) proposes to analyze adjuncts as sisters to complements, and hence to the head verb: i.e., an adjunct is contained in a flat structure. In this flat structure analysis, we need the following HeadSubject-Complement-Adjunct schema for Korean:
(83)
The schema in (83) states that zero or more adjuncts can appear in a clause and that if at least one adjunct is present, it is a sister to the arguments (subject and complements) and to the verb which subcategorizes for the arguments.22 A special property of (83) is that the value of an adjunct modifying a predicate is cospecified in the valence value of the predicate, i.e., as generally assumed, an adjunct still selects what it modifies, but the list of the modifiers is also specified as the value of the new valence feature ADJT on the modified predicate.23 The proposal to make adjuncts part of the valence specification is justified in that there seems to be no syntactic difference between arguments and adjuncts in Korean. Both can scramble within a clause, scramble out of an s- or vp-complement, be afterthought expressions in a simplex clause, and be extracted out of an s- or vp-complement to be afterhtought expressions. However, an adjunct differs from an argument in its semantics: i.e., an adjunct does not have any specific semantic role in a predicate which is modified by the adjunct, and it is a
198
Chan Chung
semantic head in that the CONTENT value of an adjunct is identical to that of the mother node. These facts will be discussed one by one shortly. In this section, we focus on the case where an adjunct scrambles out of a VP or s complement. As pointed out in Saito (1985), an adjunct generally can scramble out of a complement clause or a VP complement, as shown in (84) and (85):
(84) a.
Mary-ka [s John-i nayil kkaci ku swukcey-lul M-Nom J-Nom tomorrow by the homework-Ace machyeya-hantako] malhayssta. finish-must said/told 'Mary said that John had to finish the homework by tomorrow.' b. (?)Nayil kkaci Mary-ka John-i ku swukcey-lul tomorrow by M-Nom J-Nom the homework-Ace machyeya-hantako malhayssta. finish-must said/told
(85) a.
Mary-ka John-hanthey [VP nayil kkaci ku swukcey-lul M-Nom J-Dat tomorrow by the homework-Ace machilako] malhayssta. finish said/told 'Mary told John to finish the homework by tomorrow.' b. (?)Nayil kkaci Mary-ka John-hanthey tomorrow by M-Nom J-Dat ku swukcey-lul machilako malhayssta. the homework-Ace finish said/told c. (?)Mary-ka nayil kkaci John-hanthey M-Nom tomorrow by J-Dat ku swukcey-lul machilako malhayssta. the homework-Ace finish said/told
Here, (84b) and (85b,c) are slightly marginal compared with the (a) counterparts, but they are quite acceptable. On our approach, this fact is accounted for by the flat structure analyses, under the assumption that an adjunct of a complement verb can also be attracted to the ADJT list of a matrix verb when arguments are attracted. To this end, we need to revise the argument composition lexical rules in (67) and (79). For example, the
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
199
rule in (67) is revised into (86):
(86)
(Here a = 1 or 3.) The rule in (86) differs from (67) only in that, in the former, the adjunct (ADJT) list of a complement verb is attracted to the ADJT list of a matrix verb as well. On this approach, (84b) has the structure in (87a):
(87)
a.
200
Chan Chung
In (87), the adjunct PP nayil kkaci 'by tomorrow' takes the complement QDv as its MOD value. Note that the schema in (83) is nonspecific as to whether the modified category is the head verb or a complement verb. The structure in (87) instantiates the latter case, where the modified category is a complement verb. In this case, if we directly apply the semantic principle of Pollard and Sag (1994) given in (88), we do not get the correct interpretation. (88) In a headed phrase, the CONTENT value is token-identical to that of the adjunct daughter if the DTRS value is of sort head-adjunctstruc, and to that of the head daughter otherwise. (Pollard and Sag, 1994:56) The daughters of the s category in (87) constitute the head-subj-compadjunct-structure which contains an adjunct daughter. Then, by (88), the semantic content of the whole sentence in (87) must be identical to the semantic content of the widest-scoping adjunct daughter, which can be roughly represented as follows: by-tomorrow' (necessarily' (finish' (Mary', the-homework'))). However, this is obviously not the correct interpretation of the whole sentence. This problem can be solved by a slight revision of (88) to (89): (89) In a headed phrase, the CONTENT value is token-identical to that of an adjunct daughter if the head daughter is the value of MOD of the adjunct daughter, and to that of the head daughter otherwise. In (87), the adjunct daughter does not take the head daughter as its MOD value, and hence the CONTENT of the whole sentence is the same as that of the head daughter, which is roughly represented as follows: said' (Mary', by-tomorrow' (necessarily' (finish' (Mary', the-homework')))). On our approach, the argument composition lexical rules play a crucial role in the determination of the correct meaning mentioned above. Here the important point is that the value of the CONTENT of the input entry is token-identical to that of the output entry: i.e., only the valence value of the input entry differs from that of the output value. (90) shows the structure of (84a) which is licensed by the lexical entry to which the argument composition lexical rule does not apply. Here the structures of [Tjv:[3] and 0V: GO are shown in (91) and (92), respectively.24
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
(90)
(91)
(92)
201
202
Chan Chung
If we apply the argument composition lexical rule to (92), we obtain the following output entry:
The lexical description in (93) is the same as the head verb mv in (87b) and licenses the flat structure in (87a), whereas the one in (92) is the same as the matrix head verb EV in (90) and licenses the hierarchical structure. However, the CONTENT value of both is identical so that the structures in (87a) and (90) have exactly the same interpretation, which can roughly be represented by the CONTENT value QD in (92). A potential problem for our analysis is asymmetrical distribution of adjuncts in s- and vp-complement structures. The flat structure in (87) predicts that an adjunct which modifies the matrix head verb may occur at any place in a sentence. This prediction is borne out in the case of the vp-complement construction. The sentences in (94) show that the PP ilcwuil ceney 'one week ago' which modifies the matrix verb malhayssta 'told' can be placed rather freely: (94) a.
Mary-ka ilcwuil ceney John-hanthey ku project-lul M-Nom one week ago J-Dat the project-Ace kkuthnaylako malhayssta. finish said/told 'One week ago Mary told John to finish the project.' b. Mary-ka John-hanthey ilcwuil ceney ku project-lul M-Nom J-Dat one week ago the project-Ace kkuthnaylako malhayssta. finish said/told c. (?)Mary-ka John-hanthey ku project-lul ilcwuil ceney M-Nom J-Dat the project-Ace one week ago kkuthnaylako malhayssta. finish said/told d. Mary-ka John-hanthey ku project-lul kkuthnaylako M-Nom J-Dat the project-Ace finish ilcwuil ceney malhayssta. one week ago said/told
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
203
Even though (94c) is slightly marginal compared with the others, it is quite acceptable when a short pause is given after the adjunct, or stress is given to the adjunct.25 As shown in (95), however, in the s-complement construction, an adjunct modifying a matrix verb never occurs between the embedded subject and its predicate verb: (95) a. Mary-ka ilcwuil ceney John-i ku project-lul M-Nom one week ago J-Nom the project-Ace kkuthnayya-hantako malhayssta. finish-must said/told 'One week ago Mary said that John had to finish the project.' b. *Mary-ka John-i ilcwuil ceney ku project-lul M-Nom J-Nom one week ago the project-Ace kkuthnayya-hantako malhayssta. finish-must said/told c. *Mary-ka John-i ku project-lul ilcwuil ceney M-Nom J-Nom the project-Ace one week ago kkuthnayya-hantako malhayssta. finish-must said/told d. Mary-ka John-i ku project-lul kkuthnayya-hantako M-Nom J-Non the project-Ace finish-must ilcwuil ceney malhayssta. one week ago said/told The sentences in (95b,c) cannot be ameliorated by any pause or stress and present a sharp contrast with (94c). Therefore, the prediction seems not to be borne out that an adjunct which modifies the matrix head verb may occur at any place in a sentence. In our analysis, however, sentences such as (95b,c) can be ruled out by the interpretive principle mentioned in note 21. The principle is repeated here as (96): (96) Interpretive Principle Suppose (i) that Y is an NP[NOM], (ii) that X is the first verb following Y, and (iii) that Z is any constituent which occurs between Y and X. Then Z cannot be a "semantic dependent (semantic argument or functor)" of a verb superordinate to X. For example, the structure of semantic dependency for (95b) is as follows:
(97)
204
Chan Chung
Thus, (95b,c) are ruled out by (96) and do not present counterexamples to the flat structure analysis. Now, let us consider some matters that are relevant to LP constraints on adjuncts. First, an adjunct cannot occur after a category that is modified by the adjunct. The relevant examples are in (98): (98)
*Mary-ka [s John-i ku swukcey-lul M-Nom J-Nom the homework-Ace machyeya-hantako nayil kkaci] malhayssta. finish-must tomorrow by said/told 'Mary said that John had to finish the homework by tomorrow.'
To account for this fact, we need to assume another LP constraint in (99) which is another instance of head-finality:26 (99) SYNSEMIH < [ADJT < . . . CD ... >] The constraint in (99) simply states that an adjunct precedes a category which is modified by the adjunct. Another matter that deserves discussion is scrambling of an adverb phrase (ADVP) which is derived from a stative verb ("true adjunct" in terms of Saito, 1985).27 This kind of adjunct scrambles out of the complement clause or VP only with great difficulty, if at all, as shown in (100): (100) a.
Mary-nun [s John-i yelsimhi enehak-ul M-Top J-Nom hard linguistics-Ace kongpwuhaysstako] sayngkakhanta. studied think 'Mary thinks John studied linguistics hard.' b. ??/*Yelsimhi Mary-nun John-i enehak-ul kongpwuhaysstako hard M-Top J-Nom linguistics-Ace studied sayngkakhanta. think
(101) a.
Mary-ka John-hanthey [VP yelsimhi enehak-ul M-Nom J-Dat hard linguistics-Ace kongpwuhalako] malhayssta. study said/told 'Mary told John to study linguistics hard.' b. llYelsimhi Mary-ka John-hanthey enehak-ul kongpwuhalako hard M-Nom J-Dat linguistics-Ace study malhayssta. said/told
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
205
However, considering the examples in (102), we cannot simply assume that an ADVP does not scramble out of an s or VP at all: (102) a. (?)Enehak-ul yelsimhi Mary-nun John-i kongpwuhaysstako linguistics-Ace hard M-Top J-Nom studied sayngkakhanta. think 'Mary thinks John studied linguistics hard.' b. Enehak-ul yelsimhi Mary-ka John-hanthey kongpwuhalako linguistics-Ace hard M-Nom J-to study malhayssta. said/told 'Mary told John to study linguistics hard.' In (102), the ADVP scrambles out of the s- or vp-complement together with the object NP of the embedded verb. Such examples are notably more acceptable than (l00b) or (l0lb). Thus, in our analysis, it seems that the unacceptable (b) sentences in (100) and (101) are licensed by syntax but ruled out by certain processing factors whose exact nature is presently unknown to us. That is, ADVPS are considered the same as other kinds of adjuncts and there is no specific syntactic constraint on ADVP scrambling. In this section, we showed how the account of verbal complexes can be extended to the account of so-called long-distance scrambling. The crucial mechanisms in our analysis of long-distance scrambling are argument composition and lexical rules. Kiss (1994) extends the argument attraction mechanism in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994) to account for German modal, control, and raising verb constructions. The suggestions in this section share some of the same basic ideas. However, our proposals differ from his in several respects. The main differences are as follows: (i) arguments of the complement verb which are attracted to the nonauxiliary matrix verb are all sisters to the matrix and complement verbs (cf. Bouma and van Noord, 1998, for the same suggestion on the Germanic verb clusters); (ii) different scrambling possibilities among different vp-complement constructions are accounted for by the applicability of an argument composition lexical rule, i.e., whether the matrix verb has only the input entry of the lexical rule or only the output entry, or both of them; (iii) scrambling out of a complement clause is also accounted for via argument compostion; and (iv) the argument composition analysis extends to scrambling of adjuncts. In the next section, we discuss what theoretical predictions can be made with our approach to long-distance scrambling.
206
Chan Chung
4. THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS The goal of this section is to show what theoretical predictions our theory can make. To this end, we discuss some phenomena that have been raised in previous studies of scrambling: i.e., long-distance passivization and weak crossover effects. 4.1. Long-Distance Passivization Korean exhibits so-called long-distance passivization phenomena, where an object of an embedded verb is passivized and appears as the matrix subject, while only the matrix verb bears passive morphology. Examples are given in (103) and (104) (see Kiss, 1992, Nagai, 1991, and Yatabe, 1993, for discussions on long-distance passivization in German and Japanese): (103) a. Nay-ka Mary-hanthey ku cengchayk-ul sihaynghalako cisihayssta. I-Nom M-Dat the policy-Ace carry out ordered 'I ordered Mary to carry out the policy.' b. Ku cengchayk-i naey-uyhayse Mary-hanthey sihaynghalako the policy-Nom I-by M-Dat carry out cisi-toy-essta. order-Pass-Past (Literally) 'The policy was ordered by me for Mary to carry out.' ('It was ordered by me for Mary to carry out the policy.') (104) a. Motun salam-i hyun cengpwu-ka ku cengchayk-ul all people-NoM current government-Nom the policy-Ace sihaynghalilako sayngkakhayssta. will carry out thought 'All people thought the government would carry out the policy.' b. Ku cengchayk-i motun salamey-uyhayse hyun cengpwu-ka the policy-Nom all people-by current government-Nom sihaynghalilako sayngkak-toy-essta. will carry out think-Pass-Past (Literally) 'The policy was believed by all people that the government would carry out.' ('It was believed by all people that the government would carry out the policy.') In (103b), the object NP ku cengchayk-ul 'the policy' within the VP complement is passivized, while the passive morpheme -toy is realized on the matrix verb, e.g., cisi-toy-essta 'was ordered.' The same long-distance passive can also affect arguments of the s-complement as shown in (104b). This kind of passivization is problematic for Phrase Structure Grammar in general, because under standard assumptions an object can be passivized only when it is an argument of a verb on which the passive morpheme is realized.
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
207
Note that the subject of the embedded clause also can be the subject of the long-distance passive, as shown in (105): (105) Hyun cengpwu-ka motun salam-eyuyhayse current government-NoM all people-by ku cengchayk-ul sihaynghalilako sayngkak-toy-essta. the policy-Ace will carry out think-Pass-Past (Literally) The current government was thought by all people to carry out the policy.' Long-distance passivization phenomena are naturally accounted for by our theory of long-distance scrambling. According to that proposal, the object NP ku cengchayk-ul 'the policy' of the embedded verb in (103b) and (104b) can be attracted to the COMPS list of the matrix verb. Then the attracted NP can be promoted to subject by the passive lexical rule in (106), while the passivization morpheme is realized on the matrix verb: (106)
The passive lexical rule in (106) takes as input a base form verb (e.g., cisiha 'order' in (103a)) and gives as output a passive form verb (e.g., cisitoy 'be ordered' in (103b)). The subject of the input is removed from the SUBJ list, and its index is reassigned to the PP complement of the output. In addition, the nondative (i.e., nominative or structural) NP complement of the input is placed in the SUBJ list of the output entry. For instance, the structure of (103a) can be analyzed as a flat structure as in (107): (107)
208
Chan Chung
The application of the passive lexical rule in (106) to the head verb, [5]v in (107), yields (108) as output: (108)
fsuBJ I COMPS (pp[dat]fl,
1 HV, pp[uyhayse]m} I
Then the lexical entry in (108) licenses the passivized sentence in (103b) as follows:
(109)
In our theory, examples such as (105) can also be accounted for in terms of the passive rule in (106). The subject of the embedded verb is attracted to the COMPS list of the matrix verb: i.e., the embedded subject NP is a complement NP in the matrix verb in the output entry of the argument composition lexical rule, and thus the matrix verb feeds the passive rule. For example, (110) is the lexical entry for the matrix verb sayngkakha 'think,' which corresponds to output of the argument composition lexical rule:
(110)
The description in (110) feeds the passive rule in (106), and its output car be either (Ilia) or (lllb), since either Np[nom]^ or NPt^r]^ can be th< subject of the passive verb:
(111) a.
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
209
The description in (Ilia) licenses the sentence in (104b), while (lllb) licenses the sentence in (105). 4.2. Amelioration of Weak Crossover Effects Our unified account of long-distance scrambling and clause-internal scrambling in terms of the flat analysis also predicts some facts about the weak crossover (WCO) effect. In Korean, clause-internal scrambling ameliorates WCO effects as shown in (112): (112) a. *[Kui-uy/proi emma-ka] nwukwUj-lul salangha-ni! he-Gen/pro mother-Nom who-Acc love-Q 'WhOj does his; mother love?' b. NwukwUf-ul [ku^uy/^prOf emma-ka] salangha-nil who-Acc he-Gen/pro mother-Nom love-Q In (112a), the w/z-operator nwukwu-lul 'who' neither o-commands nor precedes the NP dominating a pronoun coindexed with the operator, which induces WCO effects.28 In contrast, in (112b), the operator precedes the NP dominating a pronoun, resulting in improved acceptability. Thus scrambling in Korean can ameliorate WCO effects. In Korean, the amelioration of the WCO effect also occurs with longdistance scrambling (Cho, 1994), as shown in (113) and (114):29 (113) a. ^KUf-uy/prOf emma-ka] [s Mary-ka nwukwurlul he-Gen/pro mother-Nom M-Nom who-Acc ttaylyesstako] sayngkakha-ni! hit think-Q (Literally) 'Whoi did hiSj mother think Mary hit?' b. Nwukwiij-ul [kUj-uy/^prot emma-ka] Mary-ka who-Acc he-Gen/pro mother-Nom M-Nom ttaylyesstako sayngkakha-ni! hit think-Q (114) a. *[KUj-uy/proi emma-ka] [s Mary-ka nwukwunkttj-lul he-Gen/pro mother-Nom M-Nom someone-Acc ttaylyesstako] sayngkakhanta. hit think-Q (Literally) 'HiSj mother thinks Mary hit someonej.'
210
Chan Chung
b.
Nwukwunka^-lul [kui-uy/(^proi emma-ka] Mary-ka someone-Acc he-Gen/pro mother-Nom M-Nom ttaylyesstako sayngkakhanta. hit think
In the (a) sentences, nwukwu-lul 'who' and nwukwunka-lul 'someone' neither c-command nor precede the NP dominating the pronoun, which induces a WCO effect. In contrast, in the (b) sentences, the operator precedes the NP dominating the pronoun, and thus the WCO effect is ameliorated. This observation shows that, in Korean, the WCO effect is ameliorated by scrambling regardless of whether the type of scrambling involved is clause-internal or clause-external.30 This kind of data shows that long-distance scrambling in Korean cannot be treated the same as long-distance scrambling in Hindi, because long-distance scrambling in that language does not ameliorate the WCO effect (e.g., (115b)), while clause-internal scrambling does (e.g., (115a)) (Mahajan, 1990).31 (115) a. kis-kOi uskiit bahin pyaar kartii hEt who his sister loves 'WhOj, his; sister loves tj?' b. *kis-koi uskiii bahin-ne socaa [ki raam-ne ti dekhaa thaa]. who his sister thought that Ram seen be-past 'WhOj, his; sister thought that Ram had seen tj?' If the behavior with respect to WCO effects is considered to be diagnostic of different kinds of dislocation, then the above evidence suggests that long-distance scrambling and clause-internal scrambling in Korean are not qualitatively distinct phenomena. Then there is no reason to assume another mechanism such as A-bar movement in GB or SLASH feature percolation in GPSG/HPSG for long-distance scrambling. In our theory, this lack of distinction between long-distance and clause-internal scrambling is captured since we analyze both as licensed in terms of argument composition, resulting in flat constituent structures. In this section, we discussed what theoretical predictions are made by our theory of long-distance scrambling. The phenomena discussed above suggest that, in Korean, clause-internal scrambling and long-distance scrambling are syntactically indistinguishable. Our theory of long-distance scrambling can naturally account for this fact because both types of scrambling are licensed through flat structures. This unified account is possible due to argument composition. The examples of long-distance passivization in section 4.1 suggest not only that both types of scrambling have the same properties, but also that the arguments of the embedded verb are attracted (or raised) to the COMPS list of the matrix verb.
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
211
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The main proposals of this paper are summarized as follows: (i) clauseinternal scrambling and long-distance scrambling are syntactically indistinguishable, and thus they must be licensed in a uniform way; (ii) both types of scrambling result from the relative lack of linear precedence constraints among the nonhead constituents at flat clausal structures; (iii) the crucial mechanism involved here is argument composition, which is utilized to account for the verbal complex system; (iv) the coexistence of verbal complexes and long-distance scrambling in languages like Korean is accounted for in a principled way because both are licensed by the same mechanism. Our analysis is similar in spirit to the A-movement approach in GB (Yoshimura, 1989), since argument composition can be regarded as an extension of raising. However, the A-movement approach seems to be problematic under the GB framework. Under the standard assumptions, A-movement (e.g., raising and passivization in English) is triggered by certain syntactic factors (Bayer and Kornfilt, 1991). The problem is that there do not seem to be any syntactic factors triggering scrambling in Korean. Based on facts about the verbal noun construction, however, Lee (1990) proposes that case alternation and word order variation are derived from the interaction between (i) the scope of an aspect morpheme and (ii) different licensing conditions for nominative, accusative, and genitive case. (See Miyagawa, 1991, for similar claims in Japanese.) That study suggests that scrambling is allowed as long as a constituent is within the scope of an appropriate Case assignor, and thus that scrambling is a Case-driven phenomenon. However, it is still an open issue how long-distance scrambling and its effects on the WCO effect and passivization can be handled in the Case-driven theory. Yatabe (1993) proposes an analysis of Japanese long-distance scrambling which is similar to our theory. That is, scrambling out of an embedded s or VP is accounted for by either "pseudo-raising" (A-movement in terms of GB) which ameliorates the WCO effect or extraposition (A-bar movement in terms of GB) which does not ameliorate the WCO effect. In the analysis of Korean, however, there is no motivation for the distinction because the amelioration of the WCO effect occurs in the Korean counterpart of Yatabe's extraposition example, as shown in (116): (116) a. *Kui-uy/proi emma-ka [s John-i etten chinkwUj-hanthey he-Gen/pro mother-Nom J-Nom which friend-Dat yok-ul haysstako] sayngkakhayss-ni*! curse-Ace did thought-Q (Literally) 'Which friendj did hisj mother think John cursed?'
212
Chan Chung
b. Etten chinkwu-hanthey kui-uy/^prolemma-ka John-i which friend-Dat he-Gen/pro mother-Norn J-Nom yok-ul haysstako] sayngkakhayss-nil curse-Ace did thought-Q Note that in Yatabe's theory, pseudo-raising allows only the NP with accusative case to be raised and thus the examples in (116) cannot be instances of pseudo-raising. However, the WCO effect is ameliorated even in this case in Korean, which suggests that the distinction between pseudo-raising and extraposition cannot be motivated by this kind of data in that language. Finally, let us compare our argument composition analysis with the verb projection raising (VPR) analysis proposed by Haegeman and van Riemsdijk (1986). They propose the reanalysis rule in (117) to account for verbal complexes in the Germanic languages: (117)
Reanalysis If the representation of a sentence contains the line XV q V r Y, where 0 < / < 2 and Vr is a VR (verb raising) verb, then add the line XV X Y to that representation.
Here, the superscript i in Vq allows the verbal category Vq to be instantiated as V°, V, or VP, depending on the language. The rule is intended for stating that when there is a sequence of verbs, Vq and Vr, and when Vr is a VR verb, Vq and Vr are reanalyzed as Vx, as in (118):
(118)
In structure (118), where Vr is the head, the internal 0-role of Vq is assumed to percolate up to Vx, while both the internal and external 0-roles of Vr are assumed to percolate up to Vx. Then the percolated internal 0-role of Vq is assumed to be "associated with" that of Vr. Here, the notion of "associated with" is not clearly defined, but we can regard it as having the same effect as argument composition or structure-sharing. In our account, (i) the COMPS list of Vq is attracted to the COMPS list of Vr by the lexical structure of Vr, and (ii) the SUBJ list and COMPS list with the attracted elements percolate up by the Valence Principle. We may say that argument composition and the Valence Principle correspond to the internal 0-role association and 0-role percolation, respectively. Despite the apparent similarity between the VPR and our analyses, there is at least one crucial difference, which bears on the applicability range of argument composition and 0-role association. In Haegeman and
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
213
van Riemsdijk's (1986) framework, the exhaustive association of internal 0-roles between the governed verb and the governing verb occurs only when two verbs are reanalyzed as a verbal complex. As discussed in sections 3 and 4, however, such internal 0-role association also seems to be required to account for long-distance scrambling in Korean where the governed verb and the governing verb do not form a verbal complex. That is, the notion of 0-role association cannot be extended or generalized into the account of this phenomenon because syntactic material can intervene between the governed and governing verbs in the long-distance scrambling case (e.g., (51), (69c), and (70c)). In contrast, we can use the same argument composition mechanism to account for the same phenomenon by simply changing the selection mechanism, i.e., by lexically specifying that the governed verb is selected by the governing verb's COMPS list, rather than by the GOV list of an auxiliary verb. The flexibility of our system is due to the fact that argument composition is based not on configuration but on structure sharing within a lexical entry.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many parts of this work are based on my dissertation at Ohio State University. I thank Carl Pollard, Peter Culicover, Robert Levine, Robert Kasper, Craige Roberts, and Andreas Kathol for their valuable comments and suggestions. This work has also benefited from the comments of two anonymous reviewers and from discussions with the audience at the HPSG workshop held at the University of Tubingen in 1995. All remaining errors are, of course, mine.
NOTES :
The distinction between passivizable and nonpassivizable auxiliaries seems to result from semantic constraints on cz-passivization. According to Li and Thompson (1975), the passive construction in topic-prominent languages such as Japanese and Korean carries a special meaning (e.g., the "adversity" passive in Japanese). The cz-passive in Korean also seems to have a semantic constraint: i.e., the verb or verbal cluster to which the passive ci attaches must not be a verb denoting a certain state, in terms of Dowty (1979). For example, the following sentences show sharp constrasts when compared with the sentences in (7b) and (8b): (i) a. *Ku namwu-ka Mary-eyuyhayse caluko isse
the tree-Norn M-by
cut
ci-essta.
be in the process of passive-past
214
Chan Chung
'The tree was in the process of being cut.' b. *Ku namwu-ka na-eyuyhayse caluko siphe ci-essta. the tree-Norn I-by cut want passive-past 'The tree was wanted to be cut by me.' c. *Ku namwu-ka Mary-eyuyhayse calukey toye ci-essta. the tree-Nom M-by cut be led to passive-past 'The tree was led to be cut by Mary.' Here the verbal clusters to which the passive ci attaches represent states, while those in (7) and (8) represent activities. 2 We may assume that the passive morpheme ci subcategorizes for the TVP (VP without the primary object) rather than the whole VP or v, and that the primary object is directly subcategorized for by ci. An example of the analysis is illustrated in (i): (i) [s Malssengmanhun so-ka [vp (ku nongpwu-eyehay) troublesome cow-Nom the farmer-by [VP [-rvp John-hanthey phala chiwe] ci-essta]]] J-Dat sell resolutely passive-past 'The troublesome cow was resolutely sold to John (by the farmer).' A problem with this analysis is that it is hard to find any syntactic evidence for the constituency of the TVP. As discussed in section 3.1.1, any phrasal category can occur after the head verb as an afterthought expression. However, the TVP in (i) cannot be an afterthought expression as shown in (ii): (ii) *Malssengmanhun so-ka ku nongpwu-eyehay ci-essta, troublesome cow-Nom the farmer-by passive-past [TVP John-hanthey phala chiwe]. J-Dat sell resolutely Also note that no parenthetical can intervene between ci and its governed verb, as shown in (iii), again exhibiting a behavior different from that of other VP complement constructions (cf. (3ciii) and (4)): (iii)
*Malssengmanhun troublesome phala chiwe] sell resolutely
so-ka ku nongpwu-eyuyhay [yyp John-hanthey cow-Nom the farmer-by J-Dat hayekan ci-essta. anyway passive-past
3 Pollard and Sag (1987) define the Locality Principle as follows: the SUBCAT elements of lexical sign (word in Pollard and Sag, 1994) specifies values for SYNTAX and SEMANTICS (SYNSEM in Pollard and Sag, 1994) but crucially not the attribute DAUGHTERS. However, Pollard and Sag (1994) assume that elements of SUBJ or COMPS lists are not of sort sign but sort synsem, which does not include the attribute DAUGHTERS. In this framework, the Locality Principle is incorporated into the definition of the features, and thus it does not need to be stated separately. 4 This terminology is taken from No (1991). 5 Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989, 1994) use the version of HPSG of Pollard and Sag (1987) in which the valence is not divided into subject and complement lists, but instead encoded in a single list (SUBCAT).
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
215
6 This is essentially the same as the CONS function in LISP which takes an element and a list to return a list: element + list => list. 7 An exception is the passive auxiliary ci, which will be discussed shortly. 8 Rule (22) excludes the possibility that an auxiliary first combines with the subject and/or complements, not with the governee verb, and licenses an ill-formed sentence in (ia): that is, in the structure in (ib), rule (22) cannot apply to the top node to discharge the GOV value because the sort of the head is not a simple word but a phrase:
(i) a. *Mekko Mary-ka sakwa-lul siphessta. eat M-Nom apple-Ace wanted 'Mary wanted to eat an apple.' b
' *S[SUBJ< > , C O M P S < >,GOV<[3]V>]
9
A similar approach is taken in Yoo (1993:196). Yoo adopts the GOV feature in Chung (1993) for lexical entries of emotion auxiliaries. The lexical entries proposed by her have a minor technical problem as they are stated, since they lead to saying that an emotion verb takes only a transitive verb as its governee. 10 We admit that the assumption of two separate lexical entries for siph weakens the argument. Presently, we have no good explanation why siph causes this case alternation. 11 In Chung (1995), the afterthought expressions are treated differently from scrambling. See Chung (1995: Chap. 4) for detailed discussion on this matter. 12 Some more object-control verbs in Korean are kangyoha 'compel,' malha 'tell,' canglyeha 'encourage,' caychokha 'urge,' pwuthakha 'ask,' helakha 'allow,' and sikhi 'make.' Subject-control verbs are mayngseyha 'vow,' sitoha 'try,' and tonguyha 'agree.' The control verb construction in Korean discussed above is similar to the so-called "optionally coherent" construction in German that has been discussed since Bech (1955). 14 In Korean, the raising-to-subject construction is an instance of the verbal complex construction, which is headed by auxiliaries such as po 'seem,' tusha 'seem, look like,' etc. In this construction, NP arguments can scramble with each other (e.g., (ia,b)). However, the governed verb and the auxiliary cannot be separated by inserting syntactic material (e.g., (ic,d)) or by making the governed verb an afterthought expression (e.g., (ie)). As discussed in section 2, these are the typical properties of verbal complexes. (i) a. Mary-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-na pota. M-Nom the book-Ace read-Past-vform.na seem 'Mary seemed to read the book.'
216
Chan Chung
b. Ku chayk-ul Mary-ka ilk-ess-na pota. the book-Ace M-Nom read-past-vform.na seem c. *Ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-na Mary-ka pota. the book-Ace read-past-vform.na M-Nom seem d. *Mary-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-na hayekanpota. M-Nom the book-Ace read-Past-vform.na anyway seem 'Anyway Mary seemed to read the book.' e. *Mary-ka pota ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-na. M-Nom seem the book-Ace read-Past-vform.na On our approach, the valence value of the raising-to-subject auxiliary po is the same as (23). See Sells (1990) for a similar analysis. 15 In Korean, nominative case can generally be assigned to the subject of a nonfinite clause, as shown in (i): (i) John-un [s [atul-i tolawa-se] kippessta. J-Top son-Norn return (base-form)-because was happy 'John was happy because his son returned.' 16
The lexical rules for long-distance scrambling in (67) may be considered lexical versions of the liberation metarule in Pullum (1982) or the liberation principle in Zwicky (1986). 17 Even though our theory can capture the different scrambling possibilities between control and raising verb constructions by restricting the application of the composition rule to the control construction, it does not explain why such a difference exists. If the difference is caused by an independent reason, we may generalize the lexical rule so that it can apply to all lexical entries which take any kind of verbal expression as a complement. For example, an alternative analysis for the raising-to-object construction in Korean may be possible if we consider Hong's (1990) analysis. According to that proposal, the accusative controller is an embedded topic. This analysis naturally eliminates the unacceptable sentences in (54d,e) and (55), i.e., the embedded topic should precede all of its clause-mate elements. However, we still need the LP constraint in (74) to account for the accusative ha -causative construction, where the causee NP cannot be assumed to be an embedded topic since it allows the complement of the embedded verb to precede the causee (e.g., (64)). A more detailed analysis of this construction is provided in the next section. 18 Another way to analyze (77b) and (78b,c) may be as instances of English-style topicalization (Bratt, 1993). This view is suspicious because no obvious evidence exists which shows that extraction out of an embedded clause differs from the other extractions. See section 4 for detailed discussion on this. 19 We have no explanation at this point for the marginal status of (78b,c). The acceptability improves with short pauses after the NP arguments, which is indicated by commas. 20 In (80b), HP'S case is not specified when assigned case is structural) just for expository convenience. 21 Case marking on arguments can affect scrambling possibilities: i.e., an argument of an embedded verb cannot scramble with an argument of a matrix verb
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
217
when they bear the same case marker, and a nominative argument of an embedded verb cannot scramble with an argument of a matrix verb. To account for the former case, Chung (1995) assumes an LP constraint into which the notion of obliqueness is incorporated: coarguments with the same case must be linearized in order of obliqueness: i.e., the less oblique one must precede the more oblique one. To account for the latter case, Chung (1995) assumes an interpretive principle which roughly states the following: Suppose (i) that Y is an Np[nom], (ii) that X is the first verb following Y, and (iii) that Z is any constituent which occurs between Y and X. Then Z cannot be a "semantic dependent (semantic argument or functor)" of a verb superordinate to X. Here semantic dependency involves structure sharing between the functor and its argument in their CONTENT values. The interpretive principle is not affected by argument composition because argument composition changes only the structure of the VALENCE value. See Chung (1995: Chap. 4) for more detailed discussion on this matter, and also see section 3.2.3 in this paper for another example where this principle is utilized. 22 A potential problem for (83) may be the semantic scope relations among more than one adjunct. In Kasper (1994), the scope of multiple adjuncts is captured in the flat structure analysis (i) by the order of adjunct daughters in the adjunct daughter list, which is ordered not by the surface order of the adjuncts but by their semantic scope, and (ii) by a split of the MOD value into SYN and SEM, reflecting the dual nature of adjuncts as semantic heads (functors), but syntactic nonheads. While a more sophisticated version of (83) will have to take these complications into account, the present version will suffice for our purposes. 23 The idea of cospecification of the modifier and modified can be considered as a hybrid of Pollard and Sag (1987) and Pollard and Sag (1994). In the former, a modifier is selected by the modified category, while in the latter, the modified category is selected by its modifier. 24 Here, in order to simplify the CONTENT value, we do not provide the semantics of the modal auxiliary verb, hanta 'must,' which is not directly relevant to current discussion. Also we simplify the CONTENT value of the adjunct nayil kkaci 'by tomorrow' by using the notation of intensional logic: by-tomorrow' (3). 25 Presently, it is not clear why (94c) is awkward. Our conjecture is that the awkwardness may be due to some processing factor. In Korean, when an adjunct immediately precedes a category which is modifiable by the adjunct, speakers tend to interpret the adjunct as modifying the immediately following category. In (94c), the adjunct ilcwuil ceney 'one week ago' immediately precedes the verb kkuthnaylako 'finish,' which is a category modifiable by the PP. Thus, the PP tends to be interpreted as modifying kkuthnaylako rather than malhayssta 'told.' A pause or stress may block this kind of processing interference. This conjecture is supported by (i): (i) Mary-ka John-hanthey ku project-lul ilcwuil ceney kuphi M-Nom J-Dat the project-Ace one week ago in haste kkuthnaylako malhayssta. finish said/told 'One week ago Mary told John to finish the project in haste.'
218
Chan Chung
Here, the adjunct ilcwuil ceney 'one week ago' and the embedded verb kkuthnaylako 'finish' are separated by another adjunct which modifies the embedded verb; consequently, (i) is much better than (94c). 26 The LP constraints encoding head-finality (e.g., (72), (74), and (99)) can be schematized as in (i), where F ranges over all valence features: (i)
[SYNSEM[1] < [VAL|F < . . . , m , . . . >] 27
These adverbs in Korean are usually derived by suffixing -(h)i or -key to a root of a stative verb. 28 See Chung (1995) for more detailed discussion in WCO effects in Korean and Pollard and Sag (1994) for the definition of o-command. 29 Saito (1992) and Yoshimura (1989) make the same observation about Japanese. 30 See (116) in section 5 for the case where an indirect object affects the WCO effect. 31 In our theory, long-distance scrambling in Hindi may be treated as a "genuine" unbounded dependency construction, on a par with English-style topicalization.
REFERENCES Bayer, J., and J. Kornfilt (1991). Against scrambling as move-alpha. NELS 21, 1-15. Bech, G. (1955). Studien fiber das deutsche Verbum Infinitum, Vol. 1 KDVS35, 2. Copenhagen. Borsley, R. (1989). An HPSG approach to Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 25, 333-354. Bouma, G., and G. van Noord (1998). Word order constraints on verb clusters in German and Dutch. In E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol, and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Complex. Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 30, 43-72. Academic Press, San Diego. Bratt, E. (1993). Clause structure and case marking in Korean causatives. In S. Kuno et al. (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V, 241-251. Hanshin, Seoul. Cho, J-H. (1994). On scrambling: Reconstruction, crossover, and anaphor binding. In Y-K. Kim-Renaud (ed.), Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, 255-274. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Cho, J. O. (1988). Suffixed verb forms and compound verb constructions. In E. Back (ed.), Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, 77-106. Hanshin, Seoul. Chung, C. (1993). Korean auxiliary verb constructions without VP nodes. In S. Kuno et al. (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V, 274-286. Hanshin, Seoul. Chung, C. (1995). A Lexical Approach to Word Order Variation in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.
Argument Composition, Long-Distance Scrambling
219
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht. Dowty, D. (1990). Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Tilburg Workshop on Discontinuous Constituency, 34-72. Gerdemann, D. (1994). Complement inheritance as subcategorization inheritance. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 341-363. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Haegeman, L., and H. van Riemsdijk (1986). Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 417-466. Hale, K. (1982). Preliminary remarks on configurationality. NELS 12. (J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells (eds.).) Heinz, W., and J. Matiasek (1994). Argument structure and case assignment in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in HeadDriven Phrase Structure Grammar, 199-236. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1989). Flipped out: AUX in German. Chicago Linguistic Society 25. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994). Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 11-37. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Hong, K-S. (1990). Subject-to-object raising in Korean. In K. Dziwirek, P. Parrel, and E. Mejias-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective, 215-226. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kang, B. M. (1988). Functional Inheritance, Anaphora, and Semantic Interpretation in a Generalized Categorial Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University. Kasper, R. (1994). Adjuncts in the Mittelfeld. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 39-69. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kathol, A. (1994). Passive without lexical rules. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 237-272. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kiss, T. (1992). Infinite Komplementation. Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum Infinitum. Ph.D. dissertation, Bergische Universitat-Gesamthochschule Wuppertal. Kiss, T. (1994). Obligatory coherence: The structure of German modal verb constructions. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 71-107. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kuh, H. (1990). Correlation between Inflection and Word Order. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Lee, Y-S. (1990). Case alternation and word order variation in nominal clauses. In H. Hoji (ed.), Japanese /Korean Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Li, C., and S. Thompson (1975). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 457-489. Academic Press, New York. Mahajan, A. (1990). The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
220
Chan Chung
Miyagawa, S. (1991). Case realization and scrambling. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University. Nagai, N. (1991). Complex passive and major subjects in Japanese. Linguistics 29, 1053-1092. No, Y. (1991). Case Alternations on Verb-Phrase Internal Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Pollard, C. (1994). Toward a unified account of passive in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 273-296. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes, Vol. 13. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, and CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pullum, G. (1982). Free word order and phrase structure rules. NELS 12, 209-220. Ryu, B-R. (1993). Structure Sharing and Argument Transfer: An HPSG Approach to Verbal Noun Constructions. Sfs-Report-04-93, University of Tubingen. Saito, M. (1985). Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Saito, M. (1992). Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 69-118. Sells, P. (1990). VP in Japanese: Evidence from -te complements. In H. Hoji (ed.), Japanese /Korean Linguistics, 319-334. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Sells, P. (1991). Complex verbs and argument structures in Korean. In S. Kuno et al. (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV, 395-406. Hanshin, Seoul. Yatabe, S. (1993). Scrambling and Japanese Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Yoo, E. J. (1993). Subcategorization and case marking in Korean. In A. Kathol and C. Pollard (eds.), Papers in Syntax. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 42, 178-198. Yoon, J. H. S. (1993). Tense, coordination, and the clausal structures of English and Korean. In S. Kuno et al. (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V, 436-446. Hanshin, Seoul. Yoshimura, N. (1989). Parasitic pronouns. Paper presented to the Japanese/Korean Linguistic Conference at UCLA. Zwicky, A. (1986) Concatenation and liberation. CLS 22. 65-74.
CONSTITUENCY AND LINEARIZATION OF VERBAL COMPLEXES ANDREAS KATHOL Department of Linguistics University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, California 94720
1. INTRODUCTION
In the descriptive toolbox of modern feature-based theories such as Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), one idea that has led to important new ways to think about the nature of linguistic knowledge is the concept of informational identity, that is in the HPSG case token-identity of information from possibly rather disparate sources. Analyses based on this concept have, for instance, yielded significant descriptive and explanatory advances in the area of nonfinite complementation. On the common transformational approach, any dissociation between syntactic and semantic "subjecthood," such as in subject-to-subject raising constructions, is achieved by means of transformational relationships among syntactic tree representations. By contrast, it has become part of most nonderivational accounts of English to think of English raising constructions in terms of a (partial) identity between the raising verb's subject and the understood subject of the VP complement. In Pollard and Sag's (1994) rendition of raising as structure sharing, the subcategorization information of the subject-raising verb consists of an NP subject and a VP complement. That VP is an unsaturated verbal projection, which means that it still requires a subject to yield a full Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Synta.
221
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
222
Andreas Kathol
sentence. This subject is not provided by means of some inaudible element, but rather, the coreference tag " Q] " in (1) indicates token-identity with the subject of the embedding raising verb. In other words, the "understood subject" of the VP complement is realized syntactically as the subject of the higher predicate. (1)
[ . . . | SUBCAT ( CDNP, VP [ . . . | SUBCAT < CD >] ) ]
In the same lexicalist spirit, extending the domain of application for structure sharing further, Hinrichs and Nakazawa's concept of argument composition (first introduced in Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1990 has had a great impact on the analysis of nonfmite complementation in head-final languages. The basic idea is to extend the linkage between the valence of the embedding and embedded predicates to all arguments, not just the subject. As the description in (2) illustrates, the whole valence value is shared among the raising verb itself and the verbal constituent subcategorized for by the latter. The entire list of selected arguments then consists of the singleton list containing the verbal complement appended (notated as " °") to the list of arguments "attracted" from the lower predicate. (2)
[. . . | SUBCAT H o ]
Ignoring the verbal complement, this means that the raising verb becomes an intransitive predicate if and only if the selected predicate is intransitive and so on for predicates of all arities, as exemplified for transitives in (3a). Moreover, in a language such as German which possesses impersonal predicates—that is, without a syntactic subject even in the finite forms—structure sharing of the valence information entails that the raising verb too will become impersonal if and only if the embedded verb is. This situation simply corresponds to the case in which the list of attracted arguments is empty, as shown in (3b): (3)
a. [ ... | SUBCAT El ° ]
b. [... I SUBCAT Q] < > ° ] As Kiss (1992) shows, there are essentially no syntactic differences in their behavior under argument composition between different classes of predicates in German that have not necessarily been treated alike in the transformational literature.1 Thus, not only classical raising verbs such as schein(en), but also tense auxiliaries and a subclass of modals pattern exactly alike in this characteristic realization of valence requirements of some predicate by some other verb. For instance, all three are eligible
Verbal Complexes
223
governors of impersonal passive constructions: (4) a. daB gearbeitet zu werden scheint. that worked to be seems 'because there seems to be working going on' b. daft gearbeitet worden ist. that worked been is 'because there has been working going on' c. daft gearbeitet werden muB. that worked be must 'because there ought to be working going on' As Kiss further shows, it is in fact possible to correlate the idea of argument composition with the notion of coherent construction, which was introduced into the syntactic description of German by Bech (1955). To this end, it is necessary to allow for a variant of argument composition in which the embedding predicate inherits all the arguments of the lower verb, but at the same time requires there to be a thematic subject. This situation arises in the case of certain EQUi-control verbs such as versuchen ('try'), which allow for a coherent complementation pattern indicative of argument composition as indicated for instance by the "scrambled" argument order in (5a), but at the same time obligatorily take a subject (5b). (5) a. daB ihm der Mann zu helfen versucht. that him-DAT the man-NOM to help tries 'that the man tries to help him.' b. *dafi gearbeitet zu werden versucht. that worked to be tries In such cases, the pattern of shared information is as outlined in (6):2 (6)
[. . . | SUBCAT Q] o ]
2. ARGUMENT COMPOSITION AND BRANCHING STRUCTURE In their original proposal, Hinrichs and Nakazawa assume that a cluster of verbal elements3 related by argument composition is the result of a sequence of binary combinations of an embedding verb with its verbal complement to the exclusion of any inherited ("proper") arguments. Canonical sequences of governors following governed verbs will then arise
224
Andreas Kathol
from left-branching structures, as the following example illustrates: (7) a. daft Peter das Buch finden konnen wird. that Peter the book find can will 'that Peter will be able to find the book' b.
However, the lexical specification of verbs involved in argument composition is actually silent with respect to the way that lexical information is projected onto syntactic structure. This means that alternative branchings are possible—and, in fact, have been proposed in the literature. For instance, Kiss (1992) adopts a right-branching analysis of the sort illustrated in (8): (8)
Apart from the directionality of branching, the analyses in (7) and (8) also differ in another respect, namely, whether the source of raised arguments can itself get raised by a higher predicate. Thus, in (7), only phrasal arguments get successively inherited from finden by konnen and wird. By contrast, in (8) the argument source finden is among the list of arguments that wird inherits from konnen. As a consequence, the highest governing predicate (here, wird) may accumulate an arbitrary number of verbal elements on its SUBCAT list whereas in Hinrichs and Nakazawa's approach,
Verbal Complexes
225
each governing verb will have at most one verbal complement in addition to the list of inherited phrasal arguments. The possibility of allowing sources for raised arguments to be inherited themselves by higher predicates does not automatically lead to a rightbranching structure.4 Rather, the syntactic structure of the verb cluster—if it is to be treated as a syntactic unit at all—crucially depends on the type of syntactic licensing mechanism adopted. While Kiss assumes binary branching generally, a popular alternative has been to assign a flat structure to the German Mittelfeld. On this approach, favored for example by Pollard et al. (1993), Baker (1994), van Noord and Bouma (1995), and Bouma and van Noord (1998), verb clusters simply constitute a subset of sisters within the flat tree making up a clause in a single step:5
(9)
This display of possibilities for the analysis of complex verbal structures in languages such as German raises the immediate question whether there is any empirical ground for a choice among the options. This study is an attempt to provide a positive answer to that question based on considerations of constituency and order variation. The analysis argued for here takes the left-branching analysis of Hinrichs and Nakazawa as its point of departure, contrasting it with the right-branching alternative which is found wanting in serious respects.6 However, closer inspection reveals that Hinrichs and Nakazawa's approach leads to a number of serious shortcomings which can be avoided if the licensing mechanism involved in the construction of verbal complexes is dissociated from that of phrasal arguments. This then also forms the basis for a novel approach toward the linearization of verbal complexes which is able to accommodate certain kinds of discontinuities seen in various German dialects and Dutch.
3. CONSTITUENCY 3.1. The Case for Left Branching One of the crucial arguments adduced by Kiss for his choice of a right-branching structure over a left-branching alternative is that it ex-
226
Andreas Kathol
ploits the division into word vs phrase-level constituents that is already provided by the grammar. That is, the valence characterization of an argument raiser such as wird in (8) makes reference to the fact that the element providing the inherited arguments is a word. In HPSG, the distinction between lexical and phrasal constituents is often made in terms of different values of the feature LEX; accordingly the lexical description of an argument-composing predicate would require a positive specification of this property:
(10) Hence, argument composition involves what Kiss calls lexeme selection. Together with ordinary, phrasal selection, this then sets up a typology of complementation types which is in parallel to the word-phrase distinction already made in the grammar. Contrast this situation now with the kind of constituents involved in left-branching structures. In (8), we need to identify sequences such as finden konnen as syntactic units that can be selected by the embedding verb. As things stand, the only distinguishing property between a "pure" verbal complex like finden konnen and one that has combined with phrasal complements such as Peter das Buch finden konnen lies in their valence—yet the central characteristic of argument raisers like wird is that they are indiscriminate with respect to the length and content of the inherited argument list. Thus in order to force the construction of verbal complexes to the exclusion of phrasal arguments, Hinrichs and Nakazawa need to have a way of distinguishing purely verbal combinations from those containing phrasal constituents and make the selectional properties of argument inheritors sensitive to that distinction. For this purpose, they postulate the feature NPCOMP, which bears a negative value so long as no phrasal constituent has combined with the amalgam of verbal elements:
(11)
Verbal Complexes
227
At first blush this seems like a crude way of achieving the required task, as it does not appear to pick out a natural class of objects or line up with any other distinction made in the grammar. But following a proposal first made by Rentier (1994), a somewhat different conclusion suggests itself in which the combination of verbal elements fits more straightforwardly into the typology of syntactic categories than Kiss suggests. Rentier adopts the characterization in (10), but gives a somewhat different interpretation to the feature LEX. Instead of lining up [LEX ± ] with HPSG's sortal distinction of signs into word and phrase, Rentier also allows verbal combinations such as finden konnen to bear the specification [LEX + ]. Being of sort word is then a sufficient, but no longer necessary, condition of a positive value of the LEX attribute. We can therefore regard elements with such a positive specification as possessing "(quasi-)lexical" status. This means that, even though syntactically the status of (partial) verbal complexes is phrasal, the amalgamation of verbal elements nevertheless behaves as a single element with regard to selecting phrasal arguments.7 Further crosslinguistic support for this conception comes from considering the status of corresponding structures in other head-final languages such as Korean and Japanese. While, in German, verbal complexes clearly constitute combinations of separate lexical elements—this conclusion is inevitable8 given the kind of order variation to be discussed in later sections—a clear separation from morphological amalgams, particularly those involving derivation or compounding, becomes much less clear (cf. for instance causatives (lida et al., 1994:7)): (12) a. Ken-ga Naomi-ni hon-o yom-ase-ta. Ken-NOM Naomi-DAT book-ACC read-CAUS-PAST 'Ken made Naomi read the book.' b. daft Hans Maria das Buch lesen lassen hat. that Hans Maria the book read made has 'that Hans made Maria read the book' From this perspective, then, both German and Japanese verbal complexes consist of combinations of verbal material with an exactly parallel combinatorial structure resulting in a construction that behaves like a single lexical unit ([LEX + ]) with respect to valence properties. The only difference is whether the combination takes place exclusively in the syntax or may also involve other components of the grammar, that is, morphology. By contrast, no comparable parallelism would exist if a right-branching analysis were adopted. This is because, in analogy with (8), one would be required to make the implausible assumption that strings of derivational affixes always combine into some morphological unit before attaching to the main verb. Of course this argument only carries force if one is willing
228
Andreas Kathol
to allow for the possibility of certain linguistic phenomena exhibiting parallel properties even though both may belong to clearly distinct grammatical subsystems, but this seems hardly a contentious issue. Having shown that Kiss' typology-based argument for right-branching structures can easily be countered by an appeal to cross-linguistic parallelism of structure, we now move on to factual empirical evidence for left branching. This involves two constructions in which the subconstituents postulated within the verbal complex actually exhibit properties of a syntactic unit. In the first of these constructions (sequences of) nonfinite verbs occur fronted in prefinite position in V2 clauses. As the examples in (13) show, not only ordinary phrasal constituents such as the direct object in (13a), but verbal constituents as well may be fronted, either alone, as in (13b), or as a sequence, as in (13c):9 (13) a. Das Buch wird Peter finden konnen. the book-ACC will-FIN Peter-NOM find can 'Peter will be able to find the book.' b. Finden wird Peter das Buch konnen. find will-FiN Peter-NOM the book-ACC can c. [Finden konnen] wird Peter das Buch. find can will-FiN Peter-NOM the book-ACC Even though, as we will see in due course, the exact formulation of this pattern presents certain difficulties under standard HPSG assumptions about complementation, the basic explanation is quite straightforward. Any governed subconstituent within a verbal complex can be fronted, that is, any verb or combination of verbs that is selected by a higher predicate (inheriting the former's arguments). By contrast, a right-branching structure not only has to accommodate the frontability of elements that do not form a syntactic unit,10 it also provides syntactic groupings, such as konnen wird, that do not behave as such under any diagnostic.11 Furthermore, it is far from clear how to reconstruct a relevant notion of government under the premise that branching is to the right. One may, for instance, consider contiguous sublists of verbal elements on the SUBCAT list as candidates for preposing. But not only would this solution be ad hoc, more significantly this move would essentially amount to reconstructing a notion of syntactic unit that is already given for free in the left-branching analysis. Another powerful argument against the right-branching analysis comes from order variation within the verbal complex in German. In cases where the verbal cluster contains a contiguous sequence of two or more morphological bare infinitives,12 the governing verb may (as in the case of the future auxiliary werden) or must (as with the perfect auxiliary haben)
Verbal Complexes
229
precede, rather than follow, the sequence of governed verbs. This type of construction is known among German grammarians as Oberfeldumstellung; an alternative label Hinrichs and Nakazawa use is Aux Flip. (14) a. daft Peter das Buch wird finden konnen. that Peter the book will find can 'that Peter will be able to find the book' b. daft Peter das Buch hat finden konnen. that Peter the book has find can 'that Peter has been able to find the book' The exact mechanisms employed by Hinrichs and Nakazawa to account for this construction will be subject to more detailed scrutiny later. At this point, however, it is important to note that their proposal lends itself rather naturally to cover these cases in terms of a simple reordering of the governing verb with respect to the governed subcomplex:13
(15)
By contrast, in a right-branching analysis, Oberfeldumstellung cannot be accounted for in terms of a simple reordering between governing verb and governed subcomplex. In fact, it is not clear if any mechanism could be found that yields an analysis of Oberfeldumstellung which remains faithful to the constituent structure in (8)—to the best of our knowledge, no such proposal has ever been advanced.14 The two phenomena considered here—partial verb cluster fronting and Oberfeldumstellung—thus provide strong evidence for the kind of constituency structure that arises in connection with assigning a binary leftbranching structure to the verb cluster. Whatever the initial plausibility of right-branching analysis, it has been shown that it cannot make up for the complete inability to provide any insight into these constructions. On the other hand, a reinterpretation of the function of the LEX feature allows us
230
Andreas Kathol
to view verbal complexes in German as the syntactic realization of complex predicates which in other languages exhibit more distinctly morphological properties. Despite its success, however, a closer look at partial verb cluster fronting cases will necessitate a reconsideration of Hinrichs and Nakazawa's idea that verbal complexes are built up via the same valence attribute as is involved in phrasal complementation, viz. SUBCAT.15 3.2. The Case for VCOMPL When we consider what parts of a verbal complex can undergo fronting, it turns out that there are severe limits which have long been known in the literature. Thus, while a main verb can be fronted alone, as was shown in (13b), repeated in (16a), this is not the case for a predicate that triggers argument composition. Thus, the example in (16b) is strongly ungrammatical: (16) a. Finden wird Peter das Buch find will-FiN Peter-NOM the book-Ace b. *Konnen wird Peter das Buch can will-FiN Peter-NOM the book-Acc
konnen. can finden. find
On the standard assumption that all types of selectional dependencies arise from regular valence features—that is, either the unitary SUBCAT feature or combination of SUBJ and COMPS features—this intuition turns out to be rather difficult to state succinctly. For instance Nerbonne (1994:139) imposes on his lexical rule for complement extraction the condition that if (the projection of) a modal verb is fronted via SLASH, there must not be any verbal element on that modal verb's SUBCAT list. This condition hence involves negated existential quantification over set elements. In addition, it is not clear if one can find a natural motivation for such a constraint. In contrast to modal verbs, a predicate such as versuchen may take a phrasal complement with zu -infinitival morphology. In such cases, the verbal complement seems to be able to "stay behind" when the governing predicate is fronted—examples such as in (17), while not entirely perfect, nevertheless are markedly better than the one in (16b): (17) ?Versprochen wird er ihr wohl [den Wagen zu waschen] promised will he her probably the car to wash nicht haben. not have 'He will probably not have promised her to wash the car.' If this is correct, Nerbonne's condition against inheriting verbal elements from modals (or tense auxiliaries) seems arbitrary.16
Verbal Complexes
231
While there seems to be a general consensus to assimilate the construction of verbal complexes to complementation in general by regarding the selection to be in terms of SUBCAT/COMPS, the particular assumptions about branching structure nevertheless force Hinrichs and Nakazawa to adopt a separate ID schema dubbed "Verbal Complex ID Schema" (Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1994b). But from this, it is only a small step toward projecting (partial) verbal complexes by an altogether different valence attribute. This is indeed what Chung (1993, 1998) proposes with the new valence feature GOV for Korean, which has since been adopted for Dutch by Rentier (1994). We will do the same here, albeit using the name VCOMPL for "verbal complement/complex,"17 which is arguably more adequate as it stresses the special involvement in the formation of complex predicates. Given this reformulation, the lexical description of a predicate controlling argument composition is as along the lines given in (18):
(18)
The removal of the verbal complement from the SUBCAT list gives us, in fact, a straightforward way of characterizing frontable constituents as the natural class of elements that bear the specification [VCOMPL < )]. This description covers ordinary phrasal arguments at the same time that it excludes predicates such as konnen or other verbal sequences bearing a nonempty VCOMPL value. In addition, there are at least three more arguments for separating the dependencies that play a role in complex predicate construction from ordinary complementation via SUBCAT. Kiss (1992) presents an attempt to relate extraposability to the incoherent vs coherent construction type in German, which is correlated with the selection of VP complements vs argument composition. From that perspective, it is tempting to identify extraposable verbal constituents in quite general terms by virtue of their valence properties, i.e., to allow for VP complements to be extraposed while the nonphrasal projections selected in argument composition are barred from extraposition. The problem with such a proposal, however, is the existence of VPS headed by lexically intransitive verbs. If a verb of this kind, for instance schlafen ('sleep'), combines with an argument-raising governor, it will bear the same valence properties as a "genuine," phrasal VP, namely, [SUBCAT {synsem}]. Yet, as the example in (19b) illustrates, despite the identity in valence and morphological properties (zw-infinitive), the
232
Andreas Kathol
complement of scheinen may not extrapose: (19) a. weil Lisa versucht [zu schlafen] because Lisa tries to sleep 'because Lisa tries to sleep' b. *weil Lisa scheint [zu schlafen] because Lisa seems to sleep One possibility is to assign a difference in terms of the word-phrase status for the complement of versuchen vs scheinen. This could be accomplished by means of Pollard's (1996) Schema B', which allows the creation of a phrasal verbal projection even when there are no complements to discharge. But then this schema gives rise to a nonbranching structure for which one can arguably provide no theory-independent motivation. On the other hand, once the distinction is made between selection via VCOMPL vs SUBCAT, it becomes straightforward to treat complements differently in each case. Only verbal complements18 selected via SUBCAT are eligible for extraposed occurrence, but never those selected by VCOMPL—regardless of their morphological or valence properties. There is a second aspect in which the formation of verbal complexes via VCOMPL seems advantageous over an approach that does not distinguish between phrasal and quasi-lexical arguments. While separable prefixes in German are mainly prepositional in origin, there are examples of noun + verb combinations such as Autofahren ('drive (a) car'), in which the nominal part arguably has the status of a separable prefix. In some cases, such "incorporated" nouns occur in the plural, as for instance in Kartenspielen ('play cards'). If the object Karten is selected via VCOMPL, then we have the prediction that even though it has the appearance of an accusative object, it should not be eligible to undergo passivization—the latter being a valence alternation only for subcategorized, phrasal arguments selected via SUBCAT. As a result, the whole predicate should count as intransitive, allowing for impersonal passive. As Kroch and Santorini (1991:295) observe, this is precisely what we find, as shown by the number inflection on the passive auxiliary in (20): (20) Damals wurde/* warden haufig Karten gespielt. then was/were often cards played 'At that time, there was frequent playing of cards.' Finally, as has been pointed out for instance by Stiebels and Wunderlich (1994:927), separable prefixes behave differently from regular phrasal arguments in progressive constructions formed with the amalgamated preposition am ('at the') in certain German dialects. As is illustrated in (21), am necessarily precedes the elements of the verb cluster, including
Verbal Complexes
233
separable prefixes such as auf: (21) a. Er ist sein Zimmer am auf he is his room at-the up He is cleaning his room.' b. *Er ist am sein Zimmer auf he is at-the his room up c. *Er ist sein Zimmer auf am he is his room up at-the
raumen. clean-iNF raumen. clean-iNF raumen. clean-iNF
The very same behavior can be seen with noun + verb combinations lending support to the claimed syntactic parallelism of these bare nouns with other elements of the verb cluster. (22) a. Er ist am Auto fahren. he is at-the car drive-iNF 'He is driving a car.' b. *Er ist Auto am fahren. he is at-the car drive-iNF The pattern in (22) is in marked contrast to the behavior of phrasal arguments such as the full NP seinen VW ('his VW). As is shown in (23), it is impossible to place the progressive marker am before the full NP:19 (23) a. ?.£> ist seinen VW am fahren. he is his VW at-the drive-iNF 'He is driving his VW.' b. *Er ist am seinen VW fahren. he is at-the his VW drive-iNF The distinction between arguments internal to the verb cluster and phrasal arguments outside of it is straightforwardly captured in our analysis in terms of the distinction in selectional attributes.20 Having established empirical motivation for the kind of branching structure proposed by Hinrichs and Nakazawa, we can now address the question of what constraints govern the linearization of verbal complexes.
4. LINEARIZATION
It has been a common assumption that despite their close syntactic similarity in other respects, German and Dutch differ in the organization of the elements in the verb cluster. In particular, verb clusters in German are typically head-final, whereas those in Dutch are head-initial. This
234
Andreas Kathol
observation has prompted Rentier (1994) to use his complex-building valence attribute to set up the distinction between orderings in German vs Dutch in terms of the linear precedence (LP) constraints sketched in (24):21 (24) a. German [SYNSEM D] ]
- < [ . . . | VCOMPL < [H >]
b. Dutch [... I VCOMPL < CD >] -< [SYNSEM 0] Thus, while the configuration of clusters in German and Dutch is the same, the two languages differ in that the first places the governor after the governed subcomplex, whereas the opposite order is observed in Dutch. However, this formulation is obviously too simplistic. As the examples of Oberfeldumstellung in (14) demonstrate, there are indeed instances in which the governor precedes, rather than follows, its verbal complement in German.22 Moreover, the treatment of Dutch in terms of (24b) is equally simplistic as it totally ignores the phenomenon, sometimes referred to as inversion (cf. van Noord and Bouma, 1995), in which the order between governor and governee exhibits left-headedness. This is a frequently attested possibility for tense auxiliaries such as the perfectivizer hebben (25), and to a lesser extent also seen with modals (26), such as willen ('want'): (25) a. dat Joop de krant heeft gelezen. that Joop the newspaper has read 'that Joop has read the newspaper' b. dat Joop de krant gelezen heeft. that Joop the newspaper read has (26) a. dat Joop de krant wil lezen. that Joop the newspaper wants read 'that Joop wants to read the newspaper' b. dat Joop de krant lezen wil. that Joop the newspaper read wants It is therefore necessary to make reference to more fine-grained distinctions than the government relationships alone. As a second approximation toward an adequate account of ordering relations within the verb cluster, we adopt a solution which is essentially isomorphic to the one Hinrichs and Nakazawa propose to account for the Oberfeldumstellung cases in (14). Their central idea is to record on nonfinite verbs the possible relative position of any embedding governor. This is
Verbal Complexes
235
achieved via the binary-valued head feature FLIP. Negative specification indicates canonical government to the left, whereas a positive value requires government by a "flipped," i.e., preceding, governor. To avoid unwanted connotations regarding markedness or exceptionality, we replace FLIP with the head attribute G(O)V(ERN)OR whose value directly indicates the required placement of a governor.23 Thus, [GVOR -> ] records on a verb that, in a verb cluster, its governor has to appear to the right, whereas [GVOR <-] encodes the opposite ordering relation. The correlated LP constraints are then straightforward and are given in (27): (27)
a. [SYNSEM DQ [. . . | GVOR
-»]]
- < [ . . . I VCOMPL < E >]
b. [... I VCOMPL < E > ] -< [SYNSEM 03 [... I GVOR «- ]] Apart from being able to make the requisite fine-grained distinctions regarding order, this formulation has the obvious advantage over Rentier's system that German and Dutch can be treated on a par with respect to the involved LP constraints, while differing in the possible values that (classes of) lexical items may bear. For instance, let us assume that nonfinite main verbs in Dutch are underspecified in terms of their value for GVOR (hence as the GVOR value we have dir, which is the supersort of the atomic sorts -> and <-) while German main verbs are obligatorily [GVOR -»]: (28) Classification of nonfinite main verbs a. German [. . . | HEAD I GVOR
-> ]
b. Dutch [. . . | HEAD | GVOR dir]
We then have an immediate account of why inversion with main verbs is never possible in Standard German; cf. (29): (29) a. *dqfi that b. *daB that
Lisa Lisa Lisa Lisa
die Zeitung the newspaper die Zeitung the newspaper
hat gelesen. has read will lesen. wants read
Turning to nonmain verbs in German, we note that their nonfinite forms display different behavior with respect to the positioning of a higher governor. In particular infinitival modals and a few other predicates which themselves take a bare-infinitival complement are underspecified regarding their GVOR value. (30)
236
Andreas Kathol
This then gives rise to an analysis of Oberfeldumstellung that is isomorphic to Hinrichs and Nakazawa's initial proposal. Note in particular that since GVOR is a head feature, the value chosen on the infinitival auxiliary will also be the same borne by the subcomplex headed by a verb such as konnen. The resulting distribution of values is given for the canonical order in (3la) and the Oberfeldumstellung case in (31b):
(31) a.
b.
As Hinrichs and Nakazawa further observe, the account given so far ignores the fact that if both haben and werden occur in a sentence, their properties with respect to Oberfeldumstellung interact. Hence, our previous discussion could be taken to suggest that cluster-final placement is always possible, whereas Oberfeldumstellung is rather restricted, as is evidenced for instance by the ungrammaticality of (29). In particular then, if the verbal complement of werden contains an element such as haben which also displays variation in the linear relations with the complement, the positioning of werden should nevertheless be independent. However, this is not the case, as the examples in (32) show. Only the variant (32a) is grammatical, with its structure shown in (33): (32) a. dafi er die Lieder wird [haben singen konnen]. that he the songs will have sing can 'that he will have been able to sing the songs' b. *daB er die Lieder [haben singen konnen] wird. that he the songs have sing can will
Verbal Complexes
237
Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994a) propose to account for this fact by assuming that haben takes on the trigger properties of the complement it embeds; hence the infinitival form of haben must satisfy the following description:24 (34)
This means that whenever haben is involved in an Oberfeldumstellung construction, the whole constituent will itself require a higher governor to precede. Otherwise, it will occasion the governor verb to occur finally, as in (35):25 (35)
Hinrichs and Nakazawa's (1994a) account can be shown to correctly capture all the grammatical permutations of verbs and their verbal complements listed in Bech (1955:63). Using his convention of indicating depth
238
Andreas Kathol
of embedding by increasing subscripts, these can be listed as in (36):26
(36)
For comparison, this table also lists two ungrammatical cases in which the highest verb "ignores" the reversal of the governee-governor order occurring in its complement (cf. (32b)). One important aspect of Hinrich and Nakazawa's system, which can be seen rather clearly in Bech's tabular representation (36), is the fact that the sequence of verbs can be divided into at most one subsequence of monotone increasing levels of embedding and exactly one monotone decreasing subsequence of levels of embedding—separated in (36) by means of "|". The first of these subsequences corresponds to what Bech calls Oberfeld ('upper field'), while the second is his Unterfeld ('lower field'), hence the terminology Oberfeldumstellung ('displacement into the upper field'): (37)
In the case of i = n — 1, the Oberfeld is empty; that is, no governor occurs in reversed position. In the next section we will encounter evidence that challenges the idea that verbal complexes can always be correlated with a linear partitioning of the set of elements that form part of the verb cluster. 4.1. Discontinuous Verbal Complexes Bech's theory of order within the verb cluster and its implementation in HPSG terms by Hinrichs and Nakazawa discussed above is to some extent a sanitized version of the facts. For one thing, it ignores the possibility of nominal elements occurring among cluster elements in what are commonly referred to as V-Projection Raising constructions such as in (38):27, 28 (38) daft Lisa dem Jungen wird das Buch geben wollen. that Lisa the boy-DAT will the book give want 'that Lisa will want to give the book to the boy' In this study, however, we focus on another set of apparent counterexamples to the implicit claim that governors may never occur inside the
Verbal Complexes
239
sequence of cluster elements corresponding to the governed verbal complex. There exists substantial evidence that this view is too strict, as such interspersals do indeed occur in a number of dialects.29 Meurers (1994) gives a number of grammatical examples in which the preposed auxiliary's placement is within the Unterfeld. Examples of this construction, referred to by Meurers as Zwischenstellung ('intermediate placement') or Verbal Complex Split, are given in (39) (Meurers, 1994): (39) a. zu dem Zeitpunkt an dem ich mich entscheiden3 hdttel mussen2. at the point at which I me decide had must 'at the point at which I should have made a decision' b. daft er das Examen bestehen3 wird/hat1 konnen2. that he the exam pass will/has can 'that he will be/has been able to pass the exam' c. daft ihm die Entscheidung nicht durchgehen3 hdtte2 durfen2. that him the decision not slip had should 'that the decision should not have passed him by' d. daft es so kommen3 hdttel mussen2. that it so come had must 'that it had to come to this' According to Meurers, the presence of two flipped auxiliaries leads to the following pattern of grammaticality:30 (40) daft er das Buch . . . that he the book a. wird1 haben2 kopieren5 Iassen4 mussen^. will have copy let must b. wirdl kopierens haben2 Iassen4 mussen3. c. ?wjrrf1 kopieren5 Iassen4 haben2 mussen^. d. *wird1 kopieren5 Iassen4 mussen3 haben2. e. kopieren5 wird1 haben2 lassen4 mussen3. f. Ikopieren5 wird1 Iassen4 haben2 mussen3. g. *kopieren5 wird1 lassen4 mussen3 haben2. h. kopieren5 lassen4 wirdl haben2 mussen3. i. *kopieren5 lassen4 wird1 mussen3 haben2. ]. *kopieren5 lassen4 mussen2 wirdl haben2. Furthermore, as we noted earlier, Standard Dutch displays the inversion order with tense auxiliaries, that is, the reversal of the typical governor-governee serialization. As has been pointed out, for instance, by van Noord and Bouma (1995), inversion is also possible with nonfinite forms of the tense auxiliary hebben. This means that in addition to the
240
Andreas Kathol
canonical order in (41a), the examples in (41b,c) are possible as well: (41) a. dat Jan dit boek moetl hebben2 gelezen3. that Jan this book must-FiN have-iNF read-iNF 'that Jan must have read book' b. dat Jan dit boek moetl gelezen3 hebben2. that Jan this book must-FiN read-psp have-iNF c. dat Jan dit boek gelezen3 moet1 hebben2. that Jan this book read-PSP must-FiN have-iNF Under the assumption that the same government and constituency relations are involved in these examples as are in the German cases, the cluster in (41b) is structurally isomorphic to German Oberfeldumstellung, whereas (41c) is a variant of the German Zwischenstellung cases in (39). Thus, a strictly phrase-structure-based view would predict that only (41b) should be possible, while the governor's occurrence internal to the governed cluster in (41c) should be illicit. However, the judgments in these cases are the exact reversal of the predictions of the theory. As van Noord and Bouma (1995) point out, sentences such as (41c) are judged to be grammatical in all dialects of Dutch; those similar to (41b) appear to be rather limited in acceptance and are possible for the most part only in Flemish dialects. A rather similar observation can be made with respect to the placement of separable prefixes. In contrast to most German dialects, separable prefixes in Dutch may "float" to earlier positions away from the main verb they cooccur with. For instance the prefix aan in aanspreken ('address') may occur not only in immediate adjacency with the main verb spreken (42a), but may also be separated from the latter by one or more intervening auxiliaries; cf. also den Besten and Edmondson (1983:193):31 (42) a. dat Jan Marie zou hebben aangesproken. that Jan Marie would have FREF.spoken 'that Jan would have spoken to Marie' b. dat Jan Marie zou aan hebben gesproken. that Jan Marie would PREF have spoken c. dat Jan Marie aan zou hebben gesproken. that Jan Marie PREF would have spoken Since prefix + verb combinations in West Germanic exhibit many of the properties of partial verbal clusters (for instance with respect to stress assignment, nonintervention of adverbs), these cases again arguably involve the discontinuous linearization of the verbal complement of a governor inside the verb cluster (here, hebben)—contrary to the predictions made by the Hinrichs-Nakazawa model of the verbal complex.
Verbal Complexes
241
Various solutions suggest themselves to the problem just encountered. In the tradition of transformational analyses, following Evers (1975), one could propose some manipulation of the constituent structure that achieves the desired linearization possibilities. However, since the ordering alternations are an exclusively local phenomenon, the existing HPSG mechanisms for nonlocal dependencies are arguably ill-suited for a reanalysis-based approach. Therefore a different line will be pursued here, which also has the significant conceptual advantage of allowing for a uniform analysis of government and constituency relations throughout West Germanic. In particular, we propose to analyze the problematic cases at face value as involving a discontinuous (partial) verb complex. As the requisite framework we adopt a variant of HPSG that possesses order domains, developed in Kathol (1995a), which in turn is based on ideas first advanced by Reape (1993). Order domains, appropriate for objects of sort sign, can be understood as totally ordered lists of information bundles which each contain phonological and syntactic-semantic information.32 Simplifying somewhat, at each application of a combinatorial schema, a corresponding order domain is built up involving the domains of the constituents thus far derived. Depending on general principles of domain construction, two basic scenarios need to be distinguished. The first possibility is that a constituent is entered into the resulting domain of the mother as a single phonologically encapsulated informational chunk. Consider for instance the combination of a verb and an NP object in (43): (43)
Here, the domain of the VP consists of two elements, one for the head (sieht) and one constructed from the complement (die Rose). In the domain resulting from the verb-object combination, the internal linear composition of die Rose can no longer be referenced. In the terminology of Kathol (1995a), the object has been domain-inserted into that of the head. As with the construction of local trees in G/HPSG, no assumption about order is mi'de at this level; instead, this will be the task of general
242
Andreas Kathol
LP constraints. As a result, LP constraints such as (27) must be thought to order domain elements, as opposed to arranging the PHON values of daughters in local trees. As the second domain construction possibility, the domain of the mother can be computed as the domain union obtained from the domains of the daughters. Domain union is equivalent to the shuffle operation; that is, given two lists A and B, a shuffling of A and B will contain the same members as A and B combined and preserve the ordering originally holding among members of each of the component lists. What is not guaranteed, however, is that A and B will necessarily be represented as contiguous sublists of the resulting list. The notion of shuffle was first introduced by Reape (1993) under the name sequence union for the analysis of nonfinite complementation structures in West Germanic. However, as will be discussed in more detail in section 5, his conception of constituency is rather different from the one argued for here. The heart of our approach to the linearization of verbal complexes lies in the assumption that the binary governor-governee combinations do not involve the insertion of the governee complex into the domain of the mother node—as is in effect assumed in Hinrichs and Nakazawa's treebased model. Instead, if the combination involves domain union, then as a result, the internal components of the governee will still be "visible" for the purposes of linearization. As a concrete example, consider the domain construction associated with a "canonical" German verb cluster, as in (44): (44)
When finden and konnen are combined, each contributes only one domain element; hence the effect of domain union will be the same as if finden had been inserted into konneris domain. However, when the resulting
Verbal Complexes
243
subcomplex is combined with wird, there are now three placement options: before finden konnen, between finden and konnen, and following finden konnen. In the case of canonical orderings, only the last is grammatical, as required by the specification [GVOR ->] on the subcomplex as inherited from konnen. Yet, that subcomplex can no longer be referred to as a separate element within the order domain. As a result, we need to revise our LP constraints in (27) to reflect this fact by making reference not to the entire governed complex, but only its head. The following LP constraint achieves the desired effect and hence supersedes the earlier formulation in (27a):33
(45) If the governor has to follow the head of the governed verbal complex, it necessarily has to follow all elements of the verbal complex; hence reference to the head in a head-final structure has the same effect as reference to the entire selected subcluster as in (27a.) At this point, we may also want to briefly consider how linearized verbal complexes are embedded into larger clausal structures. Kathol (1995a) proposes a linear model of German clause structure which is rather close in spirit to the traditional "topological fields" model (cf. for instance Drach, 1937; Engel, 1970; Hohle, 1986).34 In that formalization, a topological field constitutes an equivalence class of elements within a clausal domain. While some of these equivalence classes have cardinality restrictions (at most one Vorfeld element, exactly one domain element instantiating linke Satzklammer) others do not have such restrictions. We may then regard the verb cluster simply as one topological field, here encoded as the subsort35 uc on elements of sort dom(ain)-obj(ect).36 An example of a topological organization for a subordinate clause is given in (46):
(46)
As was argued by Kathol (1995b) and Kathol (1995a), the linear organization can also serve as the basis for a positional, albeit non-movement-based account of verb placement variability in German. Thus, a verb-initial clause such as in (47) is distinguished from the verb-final one in (46) solely on the basis of the positional assignment of the finite verb wird to cf
244
Andreas Kathol
instead of vc: (47)
Even though in the analysis adopted here, both fronted verbs and members of the verb cluster are part of the same clausal domain, the frontal occurrence does not interact with the linear constraints operative within the verb cluster. This becomes immediately apparent if one compares the relative order possibilities as in (48): (48) a. Kann er das Buck finden? can he the book find 'Can he find the book?' b. *daB er das Buck kann finden. that he the book can find In other words, a verb in frontal position is outside the scope of any constraints on order that apply to verb cluster elements. For that reason, we need to assume that the LP constraint in (45 a) only applies to elements that are topologically marked as part of the verb cluster. The requisite refinement given in (49) yields the final version of the verb cluster LP constraints. It also lists the head-initial mirror version of that LP constraint, and it is to those structures that we turn next:37
(49)
What are the valid serializations that comply with constraint (49b)? Considering first the case of Dutch, where it is possible—in fact the unmarked option—to build verbal complexes from sequences of headinitial combinations, we notice that such situations result in the precise mirror image of the German case (44). That is, if the governor must precede the head of a head-initial structure, then this will have the same linear effect as if the governor had been linearized with respect to the entire governed complex. In (50), an example is given in which arrows link
Verbal Complexes
245
each governor and the head of the governed subcomplex:
Once we have mixed precedence requirements, the linearization-based approach is clearly more flexible than one based on deriving order from tree encodings directly. Thus consider what happens when konnen's GVOR value is instantiated as <- . Any governor will have to precede it, but there is prima facie no requirement that precedence has to be immediate and therefore the lowest governed verb, finden, may intervene between the two. This is possible so long as finden's linear relation to its governor is in accordance with its own GVOR value. As a German main verb, it requires the governor to follow—as a result, both precedence requirements are satisfied in the order domain in (51):
(51)
However, this is not the only solution to the linearization constraints among the elements of the pairs finden-konnen and wird-konnen. A second possibility that is consistent with the LP requirements involves placement of the highest governor wird immediately before the head of the governed complex, konnen. The latter in turn only has to follow the dependent verb finden, but not immediately. As a result, we obtain a situation in which the governed subcomplex is linearized in a discontinuous fashion:
(52)
246
Andreas Kathol
In fact, Meurer's examples of more complicated cases in (40) can immediately be accounted for. In each of the acceptable examples in (40), the required orders between each of the pairs kopieren-lassen, lassen-mussen, haben-mussen, and wird-haben is indeed given. In each of the ungrammatical cases, one of the required orders does not hold, namely, haben illicitly follows mussen. Now what about those dialects in which linear intrusion of a governor into a verb cluster is only marginally possible or outright bad? This is where we can exploit the shift from Hinrichs and Nakazawa's binaryvalued FLIP feature to the attribute GVOR. While we have so far only encountered -> and <- as subsorts of dir, nowhere has it been stipulated that those are the only possibilities. In fact let us assume that in addition to these values there are (at least) two more possibilities, for adjacent precedence to a higher governor to the right or left, respectively. For notational perspicuity, these values will be given here as <-» and ^ .38
(53)
Values of GVOR requiring adjacent linear relations are referenced by the correlated immediate LP constraints, notated as " -<-< " in (54):39 (54) a. [...|HEAD a [GVOR «-»]] -<x [v [VCOMPL ([HEAD Q]]>]] b. [v [VCOMPL ([HEAD CD])]] -<-< [. . .|HEAD Q] [GVOR <-*]] If in the less tolerant dialects, the linear constraints on main verbs given in (27a) are instead as in (55a), the ungrammaticality of (55b) is then straightforwardly accounted for. The main verb bestehen requires its governor to follow immediately, yet the intrusion of wird/hat makes it impossible to comply with this constraint. (55) a. [. . . | GVOR «-> ] b. *daB er das Examen bestehen3 \vird/hatl konnen2. that he the exam pass will/has can 'that he will be/has been able to pass the the exam' Furthermore, this allows us to correctly characterize the difference in discontinuity effects depending on the lexical class of governees. Thus,
Verbal Complexes
247
many German dialects are significantly less tolerant toward discontinuous prefix + verb combinations than in the case of purely verbal governees, as seen in the badness of (56b):40 (56) a. daft that 'that b. *daB that
Hans Maria wird ansprechen konnen. Hans Maria will PREF.speak can Hans will be able to talk to Maria' Hans Maria an wird sprechen konnen. Hans Maria PREF will speak can
Consequently, the specification of separable prefixes as [GVOR ^> ] in most German dialects will ensure that their linear distribution is more restricted than that of regular main verbs which for the most part appear to allow for discontinuities via [GVOR -> ]. The upshot of the present discussion is therefore that much, if not all,41 of the possible orderings in West Germanic verb clusters may be reducible to lexical variation. At the same time, however, the constituency and government relations, as well as the formal means (in particular the (immediate) linear precedence constraints) can be taken to be identical across all West Germanic dialects. As another example of how the behavior of lexical classes can be captured in the present approach, consider the ordering possibilities of argument raisers in Dutch. As we observed earlier, a tense auxiliary such as hebben may display inversion with a governed predicate even if the first is nonfinite. For this reason, both hebben gelezen and gelezen hebben are possible in the examples in (41), repeated below: (41) a. dat Jan dit boek moetl hebben2 gelezen^. that Jan this book must-FiN have-iNF read-iNF 'that Jan must have read the book' b. dat Jan dit boek moet1 gelezen^ hebben2. that Jan this book must-FiN read-PSP have-iNF c. dat Jan dit boek gelezen3 moetl hebben2. that Jan this book read-PSP must-FiN have-iNF However, if a nonfinite tense auxiliary is itself governed by a modal such as moeten, no inversion is possible, as is shown in (57): (57) a. dat Jan het boek moetl hebben2 gelezen. that Jan the book must have-iNF read-PSP 'that Jan must have read the book' b. *dat Jan het boek hebben2 moet1 gelezen. that Jan the book have-iNF must read-PSP
248
Andreas Kathol
This fact is correctly captured if nonfinite tense auxiliaries in Standard Dutch are required to comply with the partial lexical description in (58): (58)
Turning to nonfinite modals now, as van Noord and Bouma (1995) observe, their linearization possibilities are more restricted than those of tense auxiliaries. An infinitival modal such as moeten disallows inversion with a governed predicate such as lezen. As a result in the examples in (59), only the governor-governee order moeten lezen is grammatical, whereas the reverse order results in unacceptability: (59) a. dat Jan dit boek zou moeten2 lezen 3. that Jan this book would must-iNF read-iNF 'that Jan would have have to read the book' b. *dat Jan dit boek zou lezen 3 moeten 2. that Jan this book would read-iNF must-iNF c. *dat Jan dit boek lezen 3 zou moeten 2. that Jan this book read-iNF would must-iNF This suggests that nonfinite modals are required in their lexical specification to comply with the following description:42
(60) To some extent, nonfinite modals in Dutch are similar to German tense auxiliaries in Oberfeldumstellung constellations. Just as infinitival haben requires governing werden to precede it, the former precedes its infinitival subcomplex; an infinitival model like moeten also links up the ordering possibilities of both governing and governed predicates resulting in an ascending sequence of governing verbs.
5. A RADICALLY LINEARIZATION-BASED THEORY? As was mentioned earlier, the analysis of verb clusters adopted here in terms of a more flexible relation between constituency and linearization rests on the proposal for order domains made in Reape (1993) and elsewhere, whose purpose was to account for the linearization of verb clusters and their dependent phrasal arguments. However, in contrast to the present approach, Reape neither links the argument structures of the
Verbal Complexes
249
elements of a verb cluster by argument composition, nor does he assume constituent status for the elements of the verb cluster. Thus, instead of forming a complex predicate, his account relies entirely on domain construction to derive the grammatical surface strings. This means that in an example such as (61), the direct object es is taken to bear a direct, syntactically manifest relation with its head lesen, as opposed to being mediated through the argument raisers versprochen and hat: (61) daB es ihm jemand zu lesen versprochen hat that it-ACC him-DAT someone-NOM to read promised has 'that someone promised him to read it' It is then, in order to allow for the heads and their respective arguments to be separated linearly, that the notion of order domain is needed. Considering the constituents involved in such an example, we can then compare Reape's "syntax tree" in (62a) with the one advocated here in (62b):
(62) a.
250
Andreas Kathol
Reape's proposal involves successive domain formation sketched in the "domain tree" in (63):
The initial appeal of this view of nonfinite complementation is that it allows an analysis of the German constructions of interest which, notwithstanding the differences in linearization, is remarkably similar to the constituency commonly proposed for the equivalent English sentences in nontransformational approaches—with the exception of Reape's analysis of German raising as S-embedding, as will be seen shortly. In effect this represents a nonderivational implementation of Ever's (1975) idea that coherent structures in German involve the syntactic representation of underlying head-argument relations which in later stages in the derivation may become "reanalyzed" into different arboreal configurations. In Reape's proposal this second reanalysis part is supplanted by a purely linear liberation of the head-argument relations. It is straightforward to bring out the parallelism between English and German if we give the syntax tree in (62) an English order. We get the very same nonfinite VP constituents (VP 2 ,VP 3 ) as in the corresponding English sentence. It is only in the analysis of noninverted finite sentences in terms of an entirely flat structure that Reape's analysis of the German example has to part company with its English counterpart, assuming a standard NP-VP analysis in the latter case. However, considering the standard HPSG analysis for English inverted clauses, the syntax trees become again iso-
Verbal Complexes
251
morphic for both languages:
(64)
Another point worth mentioning in which Reape's assumptions differ from the ones espoused here pertains to the control of domain formation. Instead of general principles, his domain construction is controlled lexically via the attribute UNIONED. Thus, [UNIONED + ] corresponds to domain union, whereas [UNIONED - ] triggers domain insertion. This attribute plays a major role in characterizing different classes of predicates that take nonfmite complements. Besides VP, the other argument category which is eligible for domain union is s. This is the basis of Reape's analysis of raising verbs whose only argument—similar to the standard GB analysis in terms of CP—is a nonfinite sentence. As a result, we have the following typology of nonfinite complementation in German consisting of three types of verbs embedding nonfinite complements: (65) a. Raising, e.g., scheinen
b. Control, coherent, e.g., versuchen
c. Control, incoherent, e.g., bezweifeln
252
Andreas Kathol
The three classes are characterized in terms of, first, the level of projection (s vs VP) and, second, whether or not the argument's DOM value is domain-unioned. Nonfinite clauses which are not domain-unioned constitute a gap in the German paradigm in Reape's typology, as Raisingto-Object type constructions43 are analyzed in terms of an NP and a VP complement (Reape, 1993:136), quite parallel to the treatment of Raisingto-Object constructions in standard HPSG. Despite its promise of a cross-linguistically uniform typology of nonfinite complementation, however, there are a number of reasons to believe that this line of analysis is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned in favor of an argument composition approach for German. The shortcomings can be characterized in terms of the different kinds of arguments to which Reape's typology prevents selectional access to.
5.1. Subjects in Nonfinite Complements As Reape himself notes (Reape, 1993:136), if a raising verb subcategorizes for a whole sentence, then a subject contained in that sentence will no longer be directly accessible to the embedding verb via valence features. However, whether the postulated clause contains a subject, and if so, how it is specified, determines the agreement marking on the governing verb. If there is no subject, as in (66a,b), the raising verb invariably shows third singular inflection; otherwise, it agrees with the subject in number and person (cf. (66c)): (66) a. Heute scheint gearbeitet zu werden. today seems worked to be 'There seems to be work going on today.' b. Den Mddchen scheint/*scheinen schlecht zu werden. the girls-DAT seem-3RD.SG/seem-3RD.PL ill to become 'The girls seem to be getting ill to their stomachs.' c. Du scheinst/*scheint mal wieder nichts zu verstehen. You seem-2ND.SG/seem-3RD.SG yet again nothing to understand 'You don't seem to understand anything again.' It is standardly assumed in HPSG accounts of agreement (cf. Pollard and Sag, 1994; Kathol, to appear; Kiss, 1992; and others) that subject-verb agreement can be captured in terms of a dependency between a verb's morphology and its valence properties. Other kinds of agreement, such as
Verbal Complexes
253
NP-internal concord in case, number, gender, and to some extent declension type, can be described in equally local terms. However, Reape is forced to abandon this well-established paradigm of explanation in lieu of an approach that needs to take other kinds of information into account, such as syntactic constituency. It is far from clear that anything can be gained by this move, especially since a syntax-based account of agreement has to take into account, for instance, the possibility of intermediate sentential adjuncts in the determination of the subject daughter of a clause. A somewhat more severe criticism pertains to the classification of auxiliaries such as the tense auxiliaries haben and sein. While they are characterized as vp-embedding in Reape's example, they behave in essentially the very same ways as raising verbs, including the fact that they do not require subjects: (67) a. Gestern ist gearbeitet warden. yesterday is worked been 'There were people working here yesterday.' b. Mich hat gefroren. me-ACC has frozen 'I was cold.' For this reason, raising verbs and tense auxiliaries should be characterized in terms of the same complementation class. If they are both specified as vp-embedding, then raising verbs will in effect instantiate class (65b), leaving no representatives of verbs that domain-union their nonfinite complement clauses. On the other hand, if tense auxiliaries are taken to be s-embedding, then—unless we assume lexical ambiguity according to complement type—another problem looms, as was first noticed by Sailer (1993:20-21). In German, certain modal verbs such as wollen allow their complements to occur with infinitival perfect, i.e., with a perfect auxiliary; consider for instance (68): (68) weil er (schon langst) gekommen sein wollte. because he already come-PSP be-iNF wanted-FiN 'because he claimed to have come already' In such contexts, the modal takes on a meaning similar to English 'claim,' which requires the subject to be accessible to establish the obligatory link between the utterer of the claim and the subject of the state of affairs thus claimed to hold. However, that subject is unavailable to the modal if the tense auxiliary is s-embedding. This means that the grammatical sentence
254
Andreas Kathol
in (68) cannot be derived, as demonstrated in (69):
(69)
It follows, therefore, that there is little support for fully sentential complements whose constituents are liberated into the matrix clause. 5.2. Direct Objects in Nonfinite Complements Besides subjects, it can be shown that direct objects too should in principle be accessible to the embedding predicate. Evidence for this comes from a phenomenon known as "distant" or "long" passive (cf. Hohle, 1978; Kiss, 1992:222-228). In (70), the NP der Wagen is the direct object of the embedded verb zu reparieren, yet its nominative case marks it as the subject of the passivized predicate wurde uersucht: (70) IDer Wagen wurde zu reparieren uersucht. the car-NOM was to repair tried 'Someone tried to repair the car.' There is significant variation in the acceptability of such constructions, both across different speakers and for different predicates. A possible line of explanation for this may lie in the fact that, unlike more typical instances of passive, in cases like (70) the passivized constituent der Wagen does not bear a direct thematic role within the predicate undergoing the passivization, zu reparieren versuchen.*4 What is important for our purposes here is that if all predicates of the uersuchen-class invariably embed VPS, as suggested by Reape, the direct object of the embedded verb (den Wagen in (70)) would never be "visible" to the passivization of versuchen. To see this, consider that if we are to account for passives in terms of a lexical rule, it can only apply to single lexical items, which means that the rule has to operate either on the valence specification of reparieren or versuchen. The infinitival, active morphology on the first clearly makes this possibility implausible, especially in the absence of a modal interpretation that accompanies combina-
Verbal Complexes
255
tions of sein and zw-infinitive in "modal passive" constructions: (71) Der Wagen ist zu reparieren. the car-NOM is to repair 'The car can be/has to be repaired.' On the other hand, if control verbs such as versuchen are taken to only take VP complements, arguments within that VP become inaccessible to valence changing operations on argument structures, rendering the nominative on the NP der Wagen inexplicable. That distant passives exist at all makes a good case for why the arguments of embedded predicate should—at least in principle—be able to become arguments of the governing verb. Reape's typology on the other hand, very clearly predicts, wrongly, that distant passives should not be grammatical under any circumstance. In contrast, as Kiss first pointed out, argument composition does yield a straightforward account. Suppose for the moment that we are to treat passives by means of a lexical rule along the lines in Pollard and Sag (1987:215):
(72)
Among the arguments that versuchen will attract from its complement zu reparieren will be the accusative NP. But then, if versuchen with its expanded valence specification "is fed" to a lexical rule such as (72), the accusative complement will undergo the case alternation and be realized as the nominative der Wagen. 5.3. Indirect Objects in Nonfinite Complements Once the case is made for cluster-internal arguments being accessible to the embedding predicate, the question arises whether other kinds of complements can also be shown to participate in valence changes that are not strictly localized within the hypothesized VP. It is argued here that there does indeed exist indirect, yet highly suggestive evidence in favor of argument composition involving indirect (dative) objects.
256
Andreas Kathol
Consider the phenomenon of "recipient passives" or "dative passives," i.e., a type of dative-nominative alternation extensively discussed in Kathol (1994) and Webelhuth and Ackerman (1992): (73) a. Ich schenke dem Jungen ein Buch. I present the boy-DAT a book-Ace 'I present the boy with a book.' b. Der Junge bekommt/kriegt/erhalt (von mir) the boy-NOM receives by me ein Buch geschenkt. a book-Ace presented 'The boy is presented with a book by me.' Such sentences involve a case alternation that affects the dative argument, unlike the case of the usual passive, where it is the direct (accusative) object that undergoes an ACC/NOM alternation. As has been argued in Kathol (1994) (cf. also Webelhuth and Ackerman, 1992), a treatment of passive in terms of lexical rules manipulating the participle's argument structure similar to the one in (72) will necessitate diacritics (or "invisible affixes") to differentiate the participles that can occur in either the regular or the dative passive along the following lines: (74) a. werden
b. bekommen
This is so because if the respective passive auxiliary (i.e., werden in the ACC/NOM alternation and bekommen, kriegen, or erhalten in the DAT/NOM alternation) only selects the complement according to its participial morphology (psp) it will be impossible to rule out the wrong combination of auxiliary and participle, as in (74): (75) a. *Der Junge wird ein Buch gegeben. the boy-NOM is a book-Ace given b. *Das Buch bekommt dem Jungen geschenkt. the book-NOM receives the boy-DAT presented In other words, without diacritics like pas-a and pas-d, one cannot tell which of the two argument alternations has taken place. The alternative
Verbal Complexes
257
solution suggested in Kathol (1994) is to make the passive auxiliaries the "locus" of the case alternation and to extend the notion of argument composition, allowing for changes on the list of arguments attracted from the governed participle. This move then obviates the need for diacritics and lexical rules (for a somewhat similar proposal, cf. Heinz and Matiasek, 1994).45
(76)
While it is the case that those who otherwise advocate argument composition (cf., Kiss, 1992) have proposed to treat passive in terms of lexical rules, it is only by argument composition that the alternative analysis is possible in the first place. In contrast, if we were to follow Reape's lead and only allow VP (or s) complements, an auxiliary-centered analysis would not even be an option and therefore a solution using diacritics on the participle would be inevitable. Thus, under the premise that a diacritic-free approach is to be preferred, we have an argument that not only accusative objects, but dative objects too, should—at least in principle—be accessible to governing verbs. But if both accusative and dative objects are in principle attractable, we can feel justified in assuming that one of the possible argument structures for verbs indeed involves attraction of all of the embedded verb's arguments. Another piece of evidence suggesting that this conclusion is on the right track comes from considerations of what motivates the choice of auxiliary in either of the two types of case alternation. As Webelhuth and Ackerman (1992) point out, there is an interesting correlation between the valence found with these verbs in their occurrences as passive auxiliaries and as main verbs. For instance, bekommen as a main verb is a monotransitive verb whose subject bears the thematic role of a recipient or beneficiary: (77) Der Junge bekommt ein Buch. the boy receives a book 'The book receives a book.'
258
Andreas Kathol
(78)
Now, if we compare this argument structure with the one for bekommen as a passive auxiliary in dative passive constructions such as (73), it turns out that the fully instantiated SUBCAT argument structure in the passive case is identical with the one in (78). The only difference resides in whether the accusative argument is a direct argument or is linked to an argument from an embedded verbal complement. By contrast, if we were instead to treat bekommen essentially as a copula taking a predicative (dative-)passivized VP as its complement, the associated argument structure is rather different from that of main verb bekommen. The former no longer qualifies as a transitive verb, which becomes apparent in the formulation that makes a distinction between SUBCAT and VCOMPL:
(79)
Thus, from the perspective of argument composition, the fact that bekommen and semantically similar verbs seem to have been appropriated as ingredients for the dative passive constructions is eminently plausible under an argument composition approach, as the necessary adaptations leave the fundamental (suBCAT-encoded) properties of bekommen as a transitive verb with a recipient-beneficiary subject unaffected. This also illuminates another aspect of dative passives, pointed out by Webelhuth and Ackerman (1992), namely, that they do not permit impersonal construals, in contrast to the ordinary ACC/NOM variety of passive; cf. (80b): (80) a. *weil because b. *weil because
einen Blumenstraufi a flower bouquet-Ace einen Blumenstrau.fi a flower bouquet-ACC
bekommt. receives geschenkt bekommt. given receives
This restriction is precisely what one would expect if the argument structure of the passive auxiliary is required to match that of the main verb as much as possible, as the latter in turn does not permit a missing subject either; cf. (80a).
Verbal Complexes
259
As Webelhuth and Ackerman point out, by the same token, the fact that impersonal instances of the regular ACC/NOM passive exist can be accounted for along very similar lines.46 They note that, in general, the auxiliaries involved in the two varieties of the ACC/NOM passive in German, werden and sein, do not impose any thematic requirement on their subject; in fact they do not even require a subject. For that reason, one can find them in lexically impersonal constructions such as the following, with an argument structure along the lines in (82): (81) a. well dem Jungen schlecht wird. because the boy-DAT sick becomes 'because the boy is getting ill to his stomach' b. weil dem Jungen schlecht ist. because the boy-DAT sick is 'because the boy is ill to his stomach'
(82)
It is this lack of thematic requirements on the subject that makes werden and sein perfect candidates to occur in constructions in which passive can only effect the demotion of a subject, but in which there is no direct object to be promoted to subject. As a result, the impersonal passive constructions in (83) are correctly predicted to be grammatical: (83) a. weil getanzt wurde. because danced was 'because there was dancing' b. weil zu tanzen ist. because to dance is 'because people must dance' As in the nonpassive case, the lack of subject selection on the part of the passive auxiliaries is reflected directly in the argument structure of the impersonal versions of werden /sein employed in (83), given schematically in (84):47 (84)
260
Andreas Kathol
Thus, if we follow Webelhuth and Ackerman in assuming that much of the organization of the lexicon emerges from structures motivated by and related to already existing structures, it becomes clear that only a view espousing argument composition can account for the observed nonrandomness between lexical elements in auxiliary and main verb function. 5.4. Conclusion If the arguments presented in this section hold up to further scrutiny, they strongly indicate that whether verb clusters are entirely accounted for via domain construction or also involve the valence properties in the form of (extended) argument composition is not just an aesthetic issue. Rather, the choice has important empirical ramifications having to do with locality and the motivation of lexical structures. What does not seem to be involved, however, is the question of weak generative capacity. That is, one could imagine ways to reconcile Reape's approach with the problems pointed out here by means of diacritics etc., but as this discussion has shown, the price appears quite high in comparison to allowing for the interactions of valence requirements of the sort proposed by argument composition.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS Since the early 1990s there has been a widespread perception that the two types of analysis of the verb cluster in German—the argument composition approach and the one using order domains—bear a complementary relation to each other. This is not all too surprising considering the original conceptions of the respective authors. However, on closer inspection, this complementarity turns out in fact to be illusory. There is certainly nothing inherent in the analyses that prevents a (partial) convergence. Thus, even though the present study argues, pace Reape, for the formation of a complex predicate in a language like German, it nevertheless represents a conceptual rapprochement toward the basic intuition behind order domains. Specifically, order domains afford a view of syntax in which constituency and linear structure are not as tightly linked as in phrase-structure-based theories and hence allow for a natural implementation of the discontinuity phenomena observed in German and Dutch. As with many other areas of linguistics, progress is commonly not achieved by trying to make the observed patterns fit the Procrustean bed of a single theoretical concept but instead by trying to find a way in which
Verbal Complexes
261
seemingly disparate insights can converge. While there is obviously much more to be said about constituency and linearization of verbal complexes in West Germanic, the hope is that the current proposal will serve as a new basis for further explorations into this fascinating, albeit highly complex, research area.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge financial support for this article from the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research. I am grateful to Gosse Bouma, Jack Hoeksema, Gertjan van Noord, Bob Kasper, Stefan Muller, John Nerbonne, and Carl Pollard for stimulating discussions and suggestions. Native speaker judgments on the Dutch sentences from Ferdinand de Haan, Mark-Jan Nederhof, Gertjan van Noord, Rob Koeling, and Mettina Veenstra are greatly appreciated. I also would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. The usual disclaimers apply.
NOTES 1For instance it has been standard practice to treat raising predicates as CP-selecting, whereas tense auxiliaries have often been considered to take mere verbal projections (v° or VP) as their complements. 2 Additional complications arise with predicates such as versprechen ('promise') which feature an optional (dative) argument of their own. This does not affect the general point to be made here, namely, that argument composition plays a crucial role in the analysis of clause-final verb clusters. 3 In this paper, verb cluster will be used as a descriptive term to refer to the accumulation of verbal material in German and Dutch clauses. By contrast, the term verbal complex more specifically indicates that the verb cluster (or at least parts thereof) is also given constituent status in the syntactic analysis. 4 On the other hand, a left-branching structure is inevitable as soon as the recursive inheritance of argument raisers is disallowed. 5 However, the adoption of a flat analysis for the phrasal elements within the Mittelfeld does not automatically entail that the lack of internal grouping has to extend to the verb cluster. Both Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b) and Rentier (1994) assume a flat analysis together with a contoured (nonfinite) verb cluster. 6 We will, however, not engage here in a discussion of analyses in terms of flat structures, in particular Bouma and van Noord (1998), which is quite similar to the current study in empirical coverage.
262
Andreas Kathol
7
A rather similar idea is pursued by Haider (1993), who analyzes verbal complexes as recursive x° structures (komplexe Projectionsbasis ('complex projection base')) with merged argument structure. See also Bierwisch's (1990) more morphologically based account which is even more similar to Hinrichs and Nakazawa's proposal in adopting a notion of functional composition. 8 Thus, we disagree with Bierwisch (1990), who blurs the syntax-morphology distinction by treating verbal elements in German verb clusters as "pseudo-affixes." A necessary connection between morphological and syntactic wordhood is also denied by Zwicky (1990:206), who states that "being word-like syntactically does not entail being word-like morphologically." It is also possible to front phrasal arguments together with the (sequence of) nonfinite verbs, as in (i): (i)
[Das Buch finden] wird Peter konnen. the book find will-FiN Peter-NOM can 'Peter will be able to find the book.'
This phenomenon has been discussed in the literature under the heading Partial VP Fronting or Remnant Topicalization. While such constructions lie outside the scope of the current study there have been numerous proposals in the HPSG literature; see, for instance, Pollard (1996), Nerbonne (1994), and Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b). For more recent proposals that are congenial to, albeit formally more elegant than, the solution in Kathol (1995a), see Meurers (1996) and Muller (1996). 10 While Kiss correctly points out that there appears to be evidence that constituency is not a necessary condition for frontabiliry, we also cannot take fronted occurrence to preclude constituency. All things being equal, an account that can assimilate (13b,c) to the well-attested fronting of constituents is clearly to be preferred over a theory that has nothing at all to say about such examples. In this connection it should also be noted that Meurers's (1996) reconstruction of verb cluster fronting in Kiss' right branching approach relies on the introduction of a structure with a nonlexical ([LEX -]) left daughter, hence one that emulates the left-branching analysis and thus in effect betrays the initial concept of building verb clusters via lexeme selection. 11 However, lack of frontability may be explained due to the independent constraint against fronting finite verbs. As Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994a:15) argue, this is only a sufficient condition; i.e., there are examples of the governing verb preceding only one infinitive. Also, this formulation requires the concept of morphological infinitive which may depart from the properties of the nonfinite form in terms of its status government. See Kathol (1995a) and the discussion in note 24 later for a proposal for relating the two notions in a systematic way. 13 Here, the feature LEX is used to indicate (quasi-)lexical status of the sort discussed above.
Verbal Complexes
263
14
Moreover, it has been taken for granted so far that, in both the canonical as well as the Oberfeldumstellung order, the governing verb bears the same grammatical relation (viz. head-argument) to the embedded verbal complex. However, there are proposals, most notably Meurers (1994), which question this assumption. Specifically, Meurers takes Oberfeldumstellung to involve head-marker structures. 15 In much of HPSG, it has become customary, following an idea first advanced by Borsley (1989), to distinguish between valence attributes for subjects (SUBJ) and complements (COMPS). None of what is said here will have any bearing on that distinction; hence we will assume the somewhat simpler version of a single subcategorization list (SUBCAT). 16 An alternative solution is proposed in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b:15), where valence features have lists of signs as their value such that their version of the complement extraction rule may only remove phrasal, as opposed to word-level, objects of sort sign from the valence list into SLASH. Such a move raises important questions regarding the locality of syntactic selection, which constitutes the original motivation in Pollard and Sag (1994) for distinguishing between the sorts sign and synsem. In the absence of other compelling evidence for conflating this distinction, it seems preferable to seek solutions that maintain the locality of syntactic selection argued for by Pollard and Sag (1994). This name is slightly reminiscient of the VCOMP grammatical function proposed by Bresnan et al.'s (1982) LFG-based account of Dutch verb clusters. In terms of constituent structure, that analysis also separates the verbal element from the phrasal ones, the latter belonging to a "verbal spine." However, while the VCOMP values contain all the grammatical functions of clausal structures (SUBJ, OBJ, etc.), it is only in the semantic representation that syntactic arguments are correlated with their respective predicates under the argument composition approach. 18 This type of selection will in addition also require verbal projections to be phrasal in their valence properties; exceptions to this generalization involve verbal arguments in the Third Construction. See Kathol (1995a) and Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1998) for discussion. 19 Note that the deciding factor cannot be lexicality alone. In the absence of unary syntactic expansions or lexical underspecification regarding their wordphrasal status, bare plurals will be grouped with single words; yet they exhibit the same pattern in progressive constructions as uncontroversially phrasal NPS: (i) a. ?Er ist Autos am waschen. he is cars at-the wash-iNF 'He is washing cars.' b. *Er ist am Autos waschen. he is at-the cars wash-iNF 20
However, as an anonymous reviewer points out, there are a number of aspects which the current treatment of separable prefixes as on a par with nonfinite verbs does not yet address. For instance, while fronting of a particle together with a finite verb is expectedly ungrammatical in most cases, as demonstrated in (i), verb-
264
Andreas Kathol
particle combinations with a (semitransparent) resultative interpretation, and thus involving secondary predication, yield significantly better results; cf. (ii): (i) a. Er hat ihr das Angebot ab geschlagen. he has her the offer PRT struck 'He refused her offer.' b. *[Das Angebot ab] hat er ihr geschlagen. the offer PRT has he her struck (ii) a. Er hat ihr den Kopf ab geschlagen. he has her the head off struck 'He beheaded her.' b. ?[Den Kopf ab] hat er ihr geschlagen. the head off has he her struck 21 For a formal characterization of LP constraints see, for instance, Kasper et al. (1995). 22 One possibility which will not be discussed here is that, even in these cases, we are dealing with the regular governor-before-governee order. Apart from the many unresolved technical issues brought about by such a treatment, it is not clear what descriptive or explanatory gains such an approach would yield over the assumption that the reversal resides solely in the ordering relations. 23 Furthermore, we do not require values of GVOR to be binary. This will provide us with a way to deal with adjacency effects, to be discussed in section 4.1. 24 Here, the selected verbal complement's VFORM value is simply given as past participle in spite of the morphological realization as bare infinitive. In Kathol (1995a:224-226), it is therefore argued that a more adequate account has to distinguish instead between the morphological realization in terms of VFORM and the governed Status, given here as STATUS. In the vast majority of cases, the two values are identical; yet for Ersatzinfinitiv forms, the two differ as is shown in (i):
(0
[ [ STATUS psp 11 [. . . | H E A D [VFORM m / J j
This allows us to state the generalization that typical instances of Oberfeldumstellung all involve the contiguous sequence of two or more forms specified as [VFORM inf]. On the formulation given in (34) alone (also the one proposed by Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1994b), the correlation between Ersatzinfinitiv and Oberfeldumstellung would be wholly accidental. 25 However, as was pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, for many speakers there also seem to be acceptable cases in which infinitival haben selects a genuine past participle but nevertheless is preceded by a governing tense auxiliary, as in (i): (i) dafi er das Lied wird gesungen haben. that he the song will sung-PSP have-iNF 'that he will have sung the song' This indicates that more refined distinctions are needed and that the structure sharing in GVOR values as shown in (34) should be restricted to Ersatzinfinitiv cases.
Verbal Complexes
265
This can be accomplished straightforwardly by exploiting the difference between STATUS and VFORM proposed in note 24. 26 The fourth pattern in the fourth column (V1V2V3|V5V4) is only possible in those dialects for which modals such as kdnnen may undergo Oberfeldumstellung. With Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994a:16,n.4) we will assume that only the tense auxiliaries werden and haben are uncontroversial when occurring in an Oberfeldumstellung construction. 27 For discussion on how to account for V-projection raising cases, see Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994a:27-33) and Kathol (1995a:252-259). A somewhat different proposal can be found in Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994b). 28 There are other irregularities that can be seen with the verb cluster which will not be dealt with here. For example, as has been observed by Reis (1979:14), if zu-infinitival haben occurs cluster-initially in an Oberfeldumstellung configuration, the expression of the zu -infinitival morphology shifts from the head to the rightmost element; cf. (ia) vs (ib): (i) a. ohne zuuor Fritz [[sehen gekonnt} zu haben]. without earlier Fritz see-iNF could-PSP to have-zu-iNF 'without having been able to see Fritz before' b. ohne zuvor Fritz [haben [sehen zu konnen]]. without earlier Fritz have-iNF see-iNF to can-zu-iNF 'without having been able to see Fritz before' 29
Such constructions have often been attributed to Southern German dialects such as Franconian (cf. Kroch and Santorini, 1991:304), yet, even though I am not a native speaker of such a dialect myself, I tend to find such examples fairly good. 30 Note that the pattern in (40d) is not generally excluded, but only in those cases in which haben selects an Ersatzinfinitiv and hence must undergo Oberfeldumstellung (with respect to at least one governed verb); cf. the following example from Bech (1955:64): (i) daB man ihn hier wird1 Iiegen5 bleiben4 lassen3 konnen 2 that one him here will lie remain let can 'that one will be able to let him keep lying here' 31 Again, there is a certain amount of dialectal variation involved here. For many speakers, the structure in (42b) is at best marginal. There is a similarity between this example and the one in (41b) in that both involve the interruption of a governor-governee sequence (moet hebben and zou hebben). However, the ungrammaticality of (42) seems significantly less severe (or even nonexistent) for many speakers than that of (41b) (Gosse Bounia, personal communication). On the other hand, as an anonymous referee points out, judgments are opposite for Flemish speakers, who find (41b) impeccable, but nevertheless rate (42b) worse than (42a,c). 32 In Reape's proposal the list elements are taken to be signs. In Kathol's theory, on the other hand, domains are populated with domain-objects, that is, information bundles whose information content is significantly reduced as compared to signs. The distinction will not be significant for present purposes.
266
Andreas Kathol
33
In order to prevent the LP constraint in (45) from "accidentally" matching against the head values of an element which is not the head of the governed subcomplex, we need to assume that, in general, domain objects are distinct in their HEAD values. See Kathol (1995a:229) for discussion of this point. The topological indices used in this study are hence (in part) inspired by the terms used in the traditional literature: vf, Vorfeld ('initial field'); cf, Comp/Finite, linke Satzklammer ('left sentence bracket'); mf, Mittelfeld ('middle field'); vc, verb cluster, rechte Satzklammer ('right sentence bracket'); and nf, Nachfeld ('final field'). 35 In Kathol (1995a), the topological indices are not encoded via subsorts on domain elements, but rather as values of the attribute TOPO. The difference is insignificant for the purposes of this study. 36 Note that in the analysis pursued here, the homogeneity in linear assignment is correlated with the fact that all verb cluster elements belong to a single syntactic constituent. In contrast, elements in mf and nf may not be exhaustively contained in a single syntactic constituent. 37 Because of examples such as anfangen ('begin'), which are argument raisers and at the same time contain a separable prefix (an), the LP constraints in (49) will ultimately have to be refined to accommodate the situation in which a VCOMPL list consists of more than one element. We will leave this problem for further research. 38 This particular organization was suggested to me by Gosse Bouma and Gertjan van Noord. 39 For a proposal giving formal content to the notion of immediate precedence in HPSG, see Kathol (1995a:133-134). 40 Similarly, as an anonymous reviewer points out, floated prefixes in Dutch seem impossible if the base verb is followed by a higher governor in the inversion order: (i) *dat Jan Marie aan zou gesproken hebben. that Jan Marie PREF would spoken have This can be accounted for by requiring prefixes such as aan to be specified as [GVOR e-* ] just in case the nonfinite base verb (gesproken) is [GVOR -> ]. 41 However, we currently have little insight to offer as to the nature of the unacceptability of the sequences in (41b) moet gelezen hebben and (42b) zou aan hebben gesproken. One possible line to pursue may be based on the observation made in Abraham (1994:42) that elements bearing a nuclear accent generally seem to have a strong tendency to occur at the left or right edge of the verb cluster. Both in (41b) and in (42b), this Fokusrandprinzip ('principle of peripheral focus') is violated. However, this still does not address the (diverging) distinctions in acceptability reported for different varieties of Dutch for such examples. 42 This requirement is too strong to accommodate examples such as (ib) from Johnson (1988:118-119), in which a higher finite governor follows, rather than precedes, a cluster headed by a nonfinite modal. However, examples of this type are uniformly rejected by all of my informants. (i) a. dat hij het [heeft [kunnen zien]]. that he it has can-iNF see-iNF 'that he has been able to see it'
Verbal Complexes
267
b. dat hij het [[kunnen zien] heeft] that he it can-iNF see-iNF has 'that he has been able to see it' 43
These are typically referred to among German grammarians as "Acl" (for accusativum cum infinitivo 'accusative with infinitive'). 44 For discussion on this point, see Kiss (1992:226). 45 Here, we make the simplifying assumption that DAT-NOM passives should only be possible if the verb in addition takes an accusative object. As Webelhuth and Ackerman (1992) observe, the acceptability of accusative-less instances as in (i) exhibits a great deal of speaker- and lexeme-dependent variation. (i) a. Ich helfe dem Jungen. I help the boy-DAT 'I help the boy.' b. DerJunge bekommt geholfen. the boy-NOM receives helped 'The boy is helped.' 46
For accounts of impersonal passives in HPSG, see for instance Pollard (1994) and Kathol (1994). The former proposes a uniform account for both personal and impersonal variants of passive. 47 The issue of finding a uniform characterization of passive auxiliaries occurring in personal and impersonal passives will have to remain unresolved here.
REFERENCES Abraham, W. (1994). Kaynes Asymmetriehypothese und die Abfolge im V-Komplex. In J.-W. Zwart (ed.), Studies in Minimalism and Kayne's Antisymmetry Hypothesis, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, Vol. 37, 19-46. Groningen. Baker, K. (1994). An integrated account of "modal flip" and partial verb phrases fronting in German. In Proceedings of the 30th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Bech, G. (1955). Studien uber das deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Danske Historiskfilologiske Meddelelser 35, 2. Bierwisch, M. (1990). Verb cluster formation as a morphological process. In G. Booij and J. van Marie (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 173-199. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Borsley, R. (1989). An HPSG approach to Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 25, 333-354. Bouma, G. and G. van Noord (1998). Word order constraints on verb clusters in German and Dutch. In E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol, and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 30, 43-72. Academic Press, San Diego.
268
Andreas Kathol
Bresnan, J., R. Kaplan, S. Peters, and A. Zaenen (1982). Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 613-635. Chung, C. (1993). Korean auxiliary verb constructions without vp-nodes. In S. Kuno, J. Whitman, Y.-S. Kang, I.-H. Lee, J. Maling, and Y. J. Kim (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V, 274-286. Hanshin, Seoul. (Proceedings of the 1993 Workshop on Korean Linguistics.) Chung, C. (1998). Argument composition and long-distance scrambling in Korean: An extension of the complex predicate analysis. In E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol, and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 30, 159-220. Academic Press, San Diego. den Besten, H., and J. Edmondson (1983). The verbal complex in continental West Germanic. In W. Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the Third Groningen Grammar Talks, 155-216. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Drach, E. (1937). Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Diesterweg, Frankfurt. Engel, U. (1970). Regeln zur Wortstellung. In U. Engel (ed.), Forschungsberichte des Instituts fur deutsche Sprache Mannheim, Vol. 5, 1-148. Gunter Narr, Tubingen. Evers, A. (1975). The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Dissertation, University of Utrecht. Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax—Generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Gunter Narr, Tubingen. Heinz, W., and J. Matiasek (1994). Argument structure and case assignment in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in HeadDriven Phrase Structure Grammar, 199-236. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1990). Subcategorization and VP structure in German. In S. Hughes and J. Salmons (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Germanic Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994a). Linearizing finite AUX in German verbal complexes. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 11-38. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1994b). Partial VP and split NP topicalization in German: An HPSG analysis. In E. Hinrichs, D. Meurers, and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Partial-VP and Sptit-NP Topicalization in German—An HPSG Analysis and Its Implementation. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Vol. 58. Hohle, T. (1978). Lexikalistische Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tubingen. Hohle, T. (1986). Der Begriff "Mittelfeld," Anmerkungen uber die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In Akten des 7. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Gottingen 1985, Vol. 3, 329-340. Tubingen. lida, M., C. Manning, P. O'Neill, and I. Sag (1994). The Lexical Integrity of Japanese Causatives. Presented at the LSA 1994 Annual Meeting, Boston. (Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.) Johnson, M. (1988). Attribute-Value Logic and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes, No. 16. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
Verbal Complexes
269
Kasper, R. T., A. Kathol, and C. Pollard (1995). A Relational Interpretation of Linear Precedence Constraints. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University. Kathol, A. (1994). Passives without lexical rules. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 237-272. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kathol, A. (1995a). Linearization-Based German Syntax. Dissertation, Ohio State University. Kathol, A. (1995b). Verb-'movement' in German and topological fields. In A. Dainora, R. Hemphill, B. Luka, B. Need, and S. Pargman (eds.), Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 231-245. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. Kathol, A. (to appear). Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In R. Levine and G. Green (eds.), Readings in HPSG. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Kiss, T. (1992). Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum Infinitum. Dissertation, Bergische Universitat-Gesamthochschule Wuppertal. Kroch, A. S., and B. Santorini (1991). The derived constituent structure of the West Germanic verb-raising construction. In R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 269-338. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Meurers, W. D. (1994). A Modified View of the German Verbal Complex. Presentation given at the 1994 HPSG workshop in Heidelberg. Meurers, W. D. (1996). German Partial-VP Fronting Revisited—Back to Basics. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tubingen. (Paper presented at the Third International Conference on HPSG, Marseille, France.) Miiller, S. (1996). Yet another paper about partial verb phrase fronting in German. In Proceedings of COLING-96, Copenhagen, 800-805. Nerbonne, J. (1994). Partial verb phrases and spurious ambiguities. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. J. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 109-150. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C. J. (1994). Toward a unified account of passive in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 273-296. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C. J. (1996). On head non-movement. In H. Bunt and A. van Horck (eds.), Discontinuous Constituency, 279-305. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. Pollard, C. J., D. Levine, and R. T. Kasper (1993). Studies in Constituent Ordering: Toward a Theory of Linearization in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Grant proposal to the National Science Foundation, Ohio State University. Pollard, C. J., and I. A. Sag (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. CSLI Lecture Notes Series No. 13. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C. J., and I. A. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, and University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Reape, M. (1993). A Formal Theory of Word Order: A Case Study in West Germanic. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
270
Andreas Kathol
Reis, M. (1979). Ansatze zu einer realistischen Grammatik. In K. Grubmiiller, E. Hellgart, H. Jellissen, and M. Reis (eds.), 1-21. Niemyer, Tubingen. Rentier, G. M. (1994). A lexicalist approach to Dutch cross dependencies. In K. Beals, J. Denton, E. Knippen, L. Melnar, H. Suzuki, and E. Zeinfeld (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 376-390. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. Sailer, M. (1993). Zuruckin die Felder. 3 Ansatze zur Beschreibung infiniter Konstruktionen in Deutschen. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tubingen. Stiebels, B., and D. Wunderlich (1994). Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32, 913-968. van Noord, G., and G. Bouma (1995). Dutch Verb Clustering without Verb Clusters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Groningen. Webelhuth, G., and F. Ackerman (1992). Form and Function: The German Passive. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina and University of California, San Diego. Zwicky, A. (1990). Syntactic words and morphological words, simple and composite. In G. Booij and J. van Marie (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, Vol. 3, 201-206. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
A DEDUCTIVE ACCOUNT OF FRENCH OBJECT CLITICS ESTHER KRAAK Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS Utrecht University Utrecht, The Netherlands
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the past few years, there has been a development in the field of computational linguistics which has led to the emergence of a so-called "grammar logic." In this framework, insights from two logical traditions have been combined: Linear Logic (Girard, 1987) has provided the notion of a resource-conscious logic, where each assumption can and must be used only once, while from the categorial line of work initiated by Lambek (1958) has come the idea of structuring the assumptions in various ways. A detailed account of the grammar logic program can be found in Moortgat (1997). The purpose of the grammar logic is to provide us with a set of constants (connectives) of grammatical reasoning which are thought to underlie our linguistic abilities. Using these constants, analyses of a wide range of phenomena from a variety of languages can be construed in an entirely deductive way. In this article we present a complex test case for the framework, in the form of the intricate data on object clitics in French. The structure of the article is as follows: In section 2 we introduce the base logic on which our grammar fragment will be built. Section 3 then gives a short overview of the empirical facts which the fragment intends to cover, and in section 4 the base logic is shown to be adequate for analyzing Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax
271
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
272
Esther Kraak
the most elementary of these constructions. In sections 5 and 6 the grammar is further refined, to deal with the more complex data concerning order requirements for multiple clitics and interactions between clitic pronouns and complex verbal constructions. Finally, in section 7 the approach presented here is compared with other analyses of the same phenomena.
2. CATEGORIAL LOGICS This section starts with an introduction to the fundamentals of categorial logic, which constitutes the basis of the grammar fragment that will be developed. In section 2.2, two key features of this basic formalism are presented that will play an important role in the analysis of French object clitic behavior: the use of unary control operators and of multiple modes of linguistic composition. To conclude, section 2.3 shows the working of the base logic with an example. 2.1. The Base Logic Consider the language ^"of category formulas, obtained by closing a set of atomic types s/ (the basic categories or basic types) under binary connectives /, •, \:
In words, a category A*B represents the composition of an element of type A with an element of type B. The slash can be regarded as the leftward- or rightward-looking "dual" of the product operator •: categories A/B and B\A express incompleteness with respect to composition. Elements of those categories need to be composed with an element of type B, on the right- or left-hand side, respectively, to yield an expression of type A. Because modal logic is ideally suited for reasoning about structures, in our case structured configurations of pieces of linguistic information, we interpret these category formulas in a Kripke style modal frame (W, R3y. Here, W represents the set of linguistic resources or signs, i.e., units of linguistic form and meaning which belong to a certain syntactic category and represent the words and phrases of a language. The ternary accessibility relation R3 in this frame represents linguistic composition, R3zxy meaning that the signs x and y can be composed to yield z. Adding a valuation v to the frame turns it into a model. This valuation takes
French Object Clitics
273
atomic categories to subsets of W (namely, those subsets containing all words and phrases of that category) and satisfies the following in case of compound formulas:
Intuitively, the relation R3 holds between two parts (x and v) and a whole (z) composed of those parts. In case of a slash category, one of the parts is unsaturated: in order to form a whole z of type C, an unsaturated part x of type C/B (resp., y of type A\C) must be composed with another part y to its right (resp., x to its left) which belongs to its argument category B (resp., A). To characterize the derivability properties of the categoryforming operators • and /, \, we will make use of the concept of residuatlon. Let j/ = (A, and 38 = be partially ordered sets. Then a pair of functions (/, g), with /: A -> B and g: B -» A is called residuated if the following holds:
For our purpose, the sets j/ and £% are the same: A and B represent the set of category formulas ^ and in both cases the ordering is the derivability relation ->. If we assume /= — *B and g = —/B, with some fixed B e ^ and take x and y in the definition of residuation to be A and C (e &~~), respectively, the above biconditional gives us
Analogously, if we assume f = A* — and g = A\- , with some fixed A e ^ and take x and y to be B and C (e &*), respectively, we get:
Combining these results yields the following laws of residuation, defining the derivability properties of the product and its left- and right-residual operators, the slashes:
The essential soundness and completeness result states that A -> B iff v(A) c u(B), for all valuations on all frames. These residuation laws, together with the inherent characteristics of the derivability relation, reflexivity (identity) and transitivity, constitute the
274
Esther Kraak
grammatical base logic. It is known as NL for nonassodatiue Lambek calculus, since it does not include the structural postulate of associativity, nor any other restriction. From this pure logic of residuation a whole landscape of categorial logics can be obtained, by relaxing its sensitivity for linguistically relevant structural parameters such as immediate dominance (constituent sensitivity) and linear precedence (order sensitivity). One way this can be done is by adding the structural postulates of Associativity and Commutativity to NL. Whereas in the base logic the interpretation of the accessibility relation R3 is completely free, adding these structural postulates introduces constraints on its interpretation. Notice that the more restrictions we impose on R3, the less discriminating it becomes. Below are the structural postulates and frame conditions that allow the linguistic resources to be restructured and reordered (permuted), respectively (for all u, x, y, z e W): Associativity A*(B*C) **(A • £)• C 3t.R3zxt & R3tyu **lu.R3uxy & R3zvu Commutativity A • B *+B*A R3zxy **R3zyx
Adding Associativity to NL gives us the Lambek system L; adding Commutativity to NL yields NLP (P for Permutation). If we adopt both postulates we get the system LP, which is also known as the Lambek-van Benthem calculus. Throughout this paper we will be using a system of natural deduction1 to present derivations of linguistic constructions; a successful derivation is called a proof. The things we want to prove are statements of the form F \- A, pronounced 'T derives A," where F is a structured configuration of category formulas and A is a single category formula. For each of the logical connectives /, •, \ there are two rules: an Introduction rule that introduces the connective to the right of the turnstile, and an Elimination rule for the removal of the connective.2 In the natural deduction rules below, the category formulas are annotated with semantic (lambda) terms, following the Curry-Howard correspondence between natural deduction proofs and terms of the A-calculus (note that Elimination corresponds to functional application, and Introduction to functional abstraction):
French Object Clitics
275
For instance, a rule such as I/ should be read as follows: if a structure F composed with a category formula B to its right-hand side derives a category formula A, then that structure F alone derives a complex category formula A/B. As we remember from the residuation laws, something is of category A / B if combining it with something of category B immediately to its right yields something of category A. This is expressed by the E/ rule, a version of the well-known rule of Modus Ponens in classical logic. It states that if some structure F derives a category A/B, and if some other structure A derives a category B, then the composition of these two structures F and A derives a category A. It is important to notice the parallellism between the logical product operator • to the right of h- and the structural product operator ° to the left. The structural connective builds a compound configuration of grammatical signs from more elementary configurations, whereas the logical operator expresses the type-logical properties of these configurations. As a simple example, we take the string of words "Mary loves Paul" and see if it derives an s, the category of a sentence. The top of the derivation (corresponding in a sense to the lexical entries) shows both "Mary" and "Paul" to be of category NP, and the verb "loves" of category (NP\S)/NP, meaning that "loves" yields a sentence if it is first combined with an NP (the object) to its right, and then with another NP (the subject) to its left. For ease of presentation, we use structural labels in the antecedent, and type formulas in the succedent:
Because the type of the verb indicates that it needs to be combined with its object first, we start by applying the E/ rule to "loves" and "Paul." It composes the words to form the string "loves Paul," which is of category NP\S—compare this category to the subcategorization list of a transitive verb, from which the object has been removed. The newly constructed phrase is not fully saturated yet, as it is still looking for a subject to its left. This is taken care of by the E\ rule, composing "Mary" and "loves Paul," which results in the string "Mary loves Paul" of the desired category s. The square brackets reflect the bracketing in the category of the verb, in that the verb and its object have been combined first, before the subject was added (the outermost brackets are dropped to improve readability). In a system where Associativity is assumed, the brackets can be omitted because all possible bracketings of a string can be generated, which are all
276
Esther Kraak
equivalent. We, however, assume a nonassociative base system, sensitive to constituent structure, for which the use of brackets is essential. As we already mentioned, structural rules of Associativity (rebracketing) and Comrnutativity (permutation) can be added to the nonassociative system NL, which will destroy the system's potential to discriminate between different structurings (dominance) and orderings (linear precedence) of the linguistic material. In natural deduction format, these rules assume the following form, where the double horizontal line indicates premise and conclusion can be interchanged, and F{A} means there is a substructure A somewhere in T:
By adding these structural rules to our system, we would not only be able to derive strings such as Mary loves Paul, but also Loves Mary Paul or Paul Mary loves as being of category s. In some cases this kind of freedom of constituent structure and/or word order can be desirable. For instance, we would like both Yesterday it was raining and It was raining yesterday to be derivable (with the same type assignment to "yesterday"}, which is not the case in (N)L. But at the same time we want to avoid derivability of such ungrammatical strings as Was yesterday it raining or Loves Mary Paul that can be derived in (N)LP. Simply assuming the structural rule of Commutativity causes our system to lose its order sensitivity completely, leaving us with no means to distinguish between grammatical and ungrammatical word order. The same holds, mutatis mutandis, for Associativity and structure sensitivity. We will see in the sections to come that it is nevertheless possible to combine different levels of structure- and order-sensitivity in one framework, by adopting a multimodal architecture which allows more fine-structuring of the notion of linguistic composition. Crucially, it will give us explicit control over the structural management of linguistic resources, instead of having the structural possibilities hard-wired into the system. 2.2. Structural Control In the previous section we have seen, in a nutshell, that although each of the Lambek systems in the structural landscape has its merits, no single one of them is capable of handling all the facts of linguistic analysis on its own. Their shortcomings can be remedied in two different ways, both providing control over the structural aspects of resource management: by
French Object Clitics
277
extending the framework with unary control operators that license or constrain structural operations on the resources (cf. Hepple, 1990; Kurtonina and Moortgat, 1996; Moortgat, 1997; Morrill, 1994; Morrill and Gavarro, 1992; Morrill et al., 1990; Nishida, 1991; Stabler, 1996; Versmissen, 1996) and by introducing a multiplicity of composition modes which all have different resource-management properties hard-wired into them (cf. Moortgat and Oehrle, 1994, 1996). 2.2.1. Unary Control Operators The central concept of residuation can be generalized to the case of ft-ary operators. The language of binary operators is extended by Kurtonina and Moortgat (1996) with a pair of unary residual operators O (diamond) and D* (box), for which the definition of residuation (fie < y iff x < gy) takes the following form:
We can see how this instantiates the general definition if we assume that O = / and D = g, and substitute A for x and B for y. By putting together the unary and binary category-forming operators we obtain a "mixed" language ^ defined inductively from a set of atomic categories j/ as
Category formulas of this language can be interpreted in terms of a mixed Kripke frame {W, R2, R2\ where the set of possible worlds W represents the set of linguistic resources, and linguistic composition is modeled by binary and ternary accessibility relations R2 and R3. The frame is turned into a model by adding a valuation v for the new unary operators (compare with that for the binary operators):
By analogy with the ternary relation .R3, we can think of binary R2 as a relation composing a whole, z, but this time out of a single part, x. It is
278
Esther Kraak
important to note that the valuation for D; is not the same as that for the box (necessity operator) in modal logic; the downarrow on the box is indicative of this difference. The accessibility relation is visualized in the diagram below, where the first and second graphs represent the relation R2 interpreting the unary category-forming operators O and D^, and the third graph represents the relation R^L interpreting the modal logic necessity operator D, given here for comparison. The diagram clearly shows the operators O and nl to be duals, as the composition relation R2 moves in opposite directions: whereas OA is the whole, composed by R2 from the part A, D^4 is the part which R2 composes to form the whole A:
The unary operators will serve as "features" that control the structural aspects (order and constituency) of linguistic composition. They can either be employed to constrain the use of permutation and rebracketing in the less discriminating logics or to license restricted use of these structural operations in the more discriminating ones. In this they show great similarity to the ! and ? operators of Linear Logic. The control features can be seen as consisting of a "question" (n 1 ) and an "answer" (O) part that cancel each other out, as expressed by the basic law Oni4 -> A (derivable in one residuation step from n^A -> \31A. What this law means, intuitively, is that a feature must be explicitly checked before it can be consumed in a grammatical deduction. In this sense the law bears a strong resemblance to the principles governing the checking of formal features that have been proposed by Stabler (1996). Rules for introducing and eliminating the diamond and box operator in natural deduction are given below.3 Analogous to the product operator, the diamond has a structural counterpart on the left-hand side of the turnstile, written here in the form of angled brackets { ). The antecedent (F> stands for a structure F which has this structural ( > connective as its main (outermost) operator.
French Object Clitics
279
It is easy to see that the rules for the box correspond to the residuation laws at beginning of section 2.2.1. The IO rule is not hard to understand either: if a structure F derives a category A, then a diamond can be introduced as main operator on both F (the structural diamond) and A (the logical diamond). The elimination rule for the diamond is somewhat more complex, but it is in fact a rule of substitution (like the elimination rule for the product; cf. the Appendix): the structural operator { ) can be replaced by the logical operator O. Kurtonina and Moortgat (1996) develop a theory of systematic communication between the systems NL, L, NLP, and LP on the basis of the diamond and box operators licensing and/or constraining the use of structural operations of Associativity and Commutativity. Through a series of embedding theorems, they show that it is possible to entirely recover the discriminatory potential of a weaker logic in a system which is less sensitive to the structural management of resources, and, in the opposite direction, that the flexibility of a stronger logic can be reintroduced in a system with a more fine-grained notion of structure-sensitivity. Like the binary connectives /, •, \ the unary operators O and D; are defined in the pure logic of residuation: there are no restrictions on the binary accessibility relation R2 interpreting the diamond and box.4 This base logic could be extended with postulates imposing constraints on R2, such as reflexivity and transitivity axioms (just as adding associativity and commutativity postulates would restrict R3). However, a logic based solely on residuation is appropriate for the unary operators used in the analysis to be presented: it will be shown in section 6.1 that a logic containing a reflexivity axiom would produce undesirable derivability results. Applications for unary control operators can be found in a variety of linguistic phenomena, for example in the realm of the locality domains that Hepple (1990) and Morrill (1994) have tried to account for with their domain modalities and bracket operators. Versmissen (1996) uses unary operators to give a categorial account of word order domains, and in the next section we will see a concrete example of the use of the diamond and box operators in an analysis of Dutch verb raising, following Moortgat and Oehrle (1996).
280
Esther Kraak
2.2.2. Multiple Forms of Linguistic Composition The second direction in which Lambek systems can be extended is by moving from mixed (W, R2, R3} frames, where connectives are interpreted in terms of a single form of linguistic composition, to multimodal frames (W, R2, R?), with i, j ranging over sets of indices J^ f. Each relation Ri j models a different way of composing the linguistic resources, and therefore the i e J^and j e^are referred to as the resource management modes. At the end of section 2.1 we already touched upon this idea of multimodality, which we will now present more formally. Multimodal systems contain a variety of (unary and binary) logical connectives <>• and •;. For each of these logical connectives there is a matching structure-building operator < >;- or 0;. As in the unimodal setting, each multimodal operator is related to its corresponding residual(s) by laws of residuation now taking the form
The indices i, j range over sets of modes in which the linguistic resources (words, phrases) can be combined, such as commutative mode, associative mode, etcetera. With each comes a mode-specific rule defining the behavior of the operator in that mode. For example, the commutative product •co is accompanied by the postulate A »co B -> B »co A, stating that if two signs are put together in commutative mode, reversal of their order is allowed. The multimodal language & can be inductively defined in a straightforward manner, and a valuation for the category formulas in the multimodal language can be given in terms of accessibility relations R2 and R^, with /,;' variables over the diverse modes of linguistic composition. The natural deduction rules for the multimodal connectives are modified, to ensure that the resource management modes are respected when introducing or eliminating any of the operators. They can be found in the Appendix. Addition of frame conditions linking the different .R, and Rj will enable the various logics in a multimodal system to interact with each other. These linking principles give the system a much greater control over resource management, making it more powerful than the sum of its parts. Linking of the different families can be realized in two ways: through Inclusion and Interaction principles. Inclusion principles order the different resource management modes. A certain mode i is ordered before another mode k by the following frame condition, with the corresponding Inclusion axiom and natural deduction
French Object Clitics
281
rule (for all x, y, z e W}\
Interaction principles mix the distinct modes. Two kinds of interaction can be distinguished: interactions between a binary Rj and a ternary Rif and interactions between two different Rt that are both ternary. Instances of the first type of interaction are the strong and weak distributivity principles K, Kl, K2 that distribute unary O over binary •. In a multimodal system, these principles can be restricted to specific mode interactions by defining the frame conditions for specific modes i,j. In axiomatic form, they will look like this:
Communication between two binary families can be established through the weak distributivity principles of Mixed Commutativity and Mixed Associativity, that can only apply in situations where the accessibility relations are in different modes (/ ¥= k). They are given here as postulates:
Whereas in the classical systems (NL, L, NLP, and LP) the structural rules of Associativity and Commutativity are either always available (hard-wired into the system) or never, in the multimodal setting these systems are put together in such a way that "substmctural travel" between them is possible. This means that elements of a logic with less discriminative power, say LP, can be imported into a more sensitive logic such as NL, through the mixed rules that define interactions between the various modes of linguistic composition. As this traveling is not allowed in general, but is restricted to situations where specific modes i and k are in construction, collapse of the more discriminating into the less discriminating logic is avoided. In other words, the interaction principles provide us with the structural flexibility needed to handle certain linguistic phenomena, without creating the problems of overgeneration that would ensue from adopting the unimodal rules of Associativity and Commutativity.
282
Esther Kraak
2.3. An Example: Dutch Verb Raising We conclude this section with an example taken from Moortgat and Oehrle (1996), showing how the multimodal framework enables us to deal with constructions that cannot be handled in a unimodal setting. We have chosen this example because the analysis it presents shows a strong resemblance to the one we will give for French object clitics in sections 4-6. Consider the following Dutch (subordinate clause) verb raising construction: (Jan weet dat Piet) Marie wil (Jan knows that Piet) Marie wants NP
plagen. to tease
VP/INF NP\INF
'Jan knows that Piet wants to tease Marie.' Given the type-assignments above, the grammatical string of words Marie wil plagen does not derive a VP in an order-sensitive system such as NL: the auxiliary wil is in between the infinitive plagen and its argument Marie, thus blocking application of the \E rule. On the other hand the string wil Marie plagen, which is ungrammatical as an embedded verb phrase, does derive a VP. In a multimodal system these problems of under- and overgeneration can be solved. In Moortgat and Oehrle (1996), two binary modes are assumed: normal phrasal composition mode ^, used for combining for instance a verb with its noun phrase arguments; and head adjunction mode »0, for putting together two elements that are both heads. These modes interact via the principles of Mixed Commutativity (MC) and Mixed Associativity (MA) below, which define the head adjunction product to take scope over the phrasal composition product: after application of these rules the »0 operator ends up governing the configuration with the •l operator.
The words of the string above are assigned to the categories NP, VP/OINF, and NEWEST, respectively: the infinitive combines with its NP argument in phrasal composition mode, whereas the auxiliary and the infinitive are linked together using the stronger of the two modes. The MC rule now enables derivation of Marie wil plagen as a VP, because the NP and the auxiliary can swap positions:
French Object Clitics
283
However, we are still left with the derivability of the ungrammatical string, and this is where the unary operators come into play. Moortgat and Oehrle introduce two unary operators, C^ and O0, whose control behavior is restricted by the following inclusion and distributivity postulates:
It is important to note that these rules allow O1 to be distributed only over •1, and O0 only over «0. The linguistic intuition behind these rules is best understood if we regard O1 as checking a phrasal head, and OQ as checking a lexical head. Distribution principles then regulate the flow of head feature information through the structure.5 By equipping the categories of verbs in the lexicon with a marker for lexical headedness DO , which needs to be counterbalanced by a corresponding diamond O0 (remember that OD^ derives A), derivation of the ungrammatical wil Marie plagen is blocked:
Reading from the bottom up,6 the goal of the derivation is to determine whether the string wil Marie plagen derives a properly headed verb phrase, indicated by the box operator on the VP. The rule I lifts this box over the turnstile where it assumes the form of its residual, the structural diamond operator < }\. This phrasal composition diamond needs to be distributed over a head adjunction configuration, but the mismatch of modes blocks the use of rule K. Application of the inclusion principle causes the diamond to switch from phrasal composition to head adjunction mode. Now it can be strongly distributed over the product, thus identifying both substructures of the head adjunction as lexical heads. The elimination rule splits up the structure, leaving us with the lexical entry axiom (in one more step) for wil on the left and Marie plagen on the right. The diamond then must continue its nondeterministic search for the lexical head in the substructure Marie plagen. However, the operator is now in mode 0, for
284
Esther Kraak
which distribution over the phrasal composition product connecting Marie and plagen is not allowed. The inclusion principle being one-way only, switching the diamond back to mode 1 is not an option, and derivation fails at this point. To conclude, we present the derivation of the grammatical construction. It shows that Marie can be composed with the infinitive, by applying the Mixed Commutativity rule, but only after (again reading from the bottom upward) the headedness of the entire phrase has been checked via distribution of the diamond. In other words, as long as headedness has not been checked, phrasal composition cannot occur within a head adjunction configuration, for this would cause the distributivity problem we have just seen in the ungrammatical case.
If the semantically interesting part of this derivation (here just the elimination steps for the slashes, as only these correspond to an operationfunctional application-in the semantics) is annotated with semantic terms, we see the verb wil take correct scope over the application of plagen to Marie:
The basic grammar logic that has been presented in this section constitutes the starting point for the grammar fragment to be developed in sections
French Object Clitics
285
4-6. The following section gives a brief overview of the data which the fragment aims to cover.
3. DATA
In this section we list the facts about the behavior of French object clitics for which we want our grammar fragment to account. They concern the relations object clitics have with their full NP counterparts, with the verbs they lean on and with other clitics. Our analysis of these data, based on the multimodal framework as we have just seen it, will then be presented in sections 4-6. • Clitics are pronouns in their weak form. French pronouns can be classified into weak and strong forms. The first group, also known as clitics, includes the subject pronouns je, tu, il, elle, ce, on, nous, uous, Us, elles; the direct object pronouns me, te, le, la, se, nous, uous, les; the indirect object pronouns me, te, se, lui, nous, vous, leur; locative y and genitive or quantitative en; while the latter consists of the corresponding strong forms moi, toi, lui, elle, nous, vous, ewe, elles, and cela. Not all clitics have a corresponding strong pronoun, such as, for example, v, which replaces a combination of the preposition a and a normal NP. (1) a. Je le lui donnerai. ('I will give it to him.') b. Eux n'auraient pas fait cela. ('They would not have done that.') • Object clitics are in complementary distribution with strong pronouns and normal NPS. Weak object pronouns occur in positions that cannot be occupied by a normal object NP; conversely, object clitics cannot occupy NP positions: (2) a. b. c. d.
Marie *Marie Marie *Marie
les connait. ('Marie knows them.') mes amis connait. ('Marie knows my friends.') connait mes amis. connait les.
Apart from constructions like (3a), where the NP is added to a sentence (but separated from it by a pause) to emphasize the object in that sentence, a clitic pronoun can never occur simultaneously with its NP counterpart or with its strong pronoun variant: (3) a. Marie les connait, mes amis. ('Marie knows them, my friends.') b. *Marie le voit Jean. ('Marie sees him Jean.')
286
Esther Kraak
• Clitics cannot occur at all in the absence of a host. Unlike strong pronouns and full NFS, clitics need an adjacent, phonologically strong word to support them. Without such a host the sentence is ungrammatical: (4) a. b. c. d.
Qui as-tu vul ('Who did you see?') *Les. Ewe. ('Them. Them.') Ou as-tu etel ('Where have you been?') *Y. A la maison. ('There. At home.')
• Object clitics occur preverbally. Apart from their occurrence in positive imperatives, object clitics can only occupy preverbal positions, the verb serving as their host: (5) a. b. c. d.
Jean lew donne des cadeaux. ('Jean gives them presents.') *Jean donne lew des cadeaux. Donne-les-lui. ('Give them to him.') *Les lui donne.
• A clitic's verbal host cannot be a past participle. Although every clitic or combination of clitics needs an adjoining verb to lean on, not all verb forms are possible hosts for clitics. In French, verbs in their finite, infinitival, or present participle form (including the gerundive construction with en) can fulfill this role, whereas past participles never do: (6) a. Je lui parlerai demain. ('I will speak to him tomorrow.') b. Marie veut la lui montrer. ('Marie wants to show it to her.') c. Jean regarde Paul en Vecoutant. ('Jean looks at Paul while listening to him.') d. *Elle a les manges. ('She has eaten them.') e. Elle les a manges. • Nothing can intervene between object clitic and verb. Apart from another object clitic, no lexical material can intervene between the object clitic and its host verb: (7) a. b. c. d.
Jean ne Va pas vu. ('Jean has not seen him.') *Jean le n'a pas vu. Marie le lui dira. ('Marie will say it to him.') *Marie le lui souvent a dit. ('Marie has often said it to him.')
• Clitics cannot be conjoined. Unlike full NFS and strong pronouns, clitics cannot be conjoined, nor can they have wide scope over a conjunction of verbs: (8) a. *Jean le et la voit. ('Jean sees him and her.') b. *Jean le voit et entend. ('Jean sees and hears him.')
287
French Object Clitics
• Clitics can occur on a host of which they are not a complement. Some verbs allow a clitic to be attached to them, even though it is an argument of the embedded verb. This is the case with verbs expressing causation, such as laisser and faire, or perception, like voir, entendre, and others, when the understood subject of the embedded verb is a dative NP: (9) a. Marie laisse manger unepoire a Jean. ('Marie lets Jean eat a pear.') b. Marie la lui laisse manger. ('Marie lets him eat it.') In sentence (9b) the clitics are attached to the finite verb, although they are the (understood) subject and the object of the infinitive lower in the structure. However, if the embedded verb has an accusative NP as its subject, its object cannot be attached to the matrix verb: (10) a. b. c. d.
Marie laisse Jean manger une poire. ('Marie lets Jean eat a pear.') * Marie la laisse Jean manger. Marie le laisse manger une poire. *Marie le la laisse manger.
Most verbs do not allow the so-called clitic climbing of example (9b), leaving the clitic(s) attached to the infinitive: (11) a. Jean veut les manger. ('Jean wants to eat them.') b. Jean les veut manger. • Clitics appear in a fixed order. An important property of clitics is that their relative order is not subject to any variation. It is generally assumed that French pronominal clitics are realized according to a kind of "template," describing the order in which clitics (and negative particle ne) must occur: Position:
I
II
NOM
ne
III me te nous vous se
IV
V
VI
VII
SACC
3DAT
y
en
Here NOM represents the subject clitics; 3ACC the third person accusative clitics le, la, les; and BOAT the third person dative clitics lui and leur. Usually the following assumptions accompany this template: clitics must occur in the indicated order, there can be only one clitic per position, normally there are at most two object clitics, and in a cluster of clitics the positions III and V cannot be filled simultaneously. The following examples reflect these restrictions on order and co-occurrence of the clitic
288
Esther Kraak
pronouns: (12) a. b. c. d. e. f.
Je ne le lui donneraipas. ('I will not give it to him.') *Je ne lui le donnerai pas. Jean me Va dit. ('Jean has said it to me.') *Jean le m'a dit. *Elle te lui presentera. ('She will introduce you to him.') Je I'y ai vu. ('I saw him there.')
The phenomena described here will have to be accounted for in any adequate theory of clitic pronouns. We will see in the following sections that the data from examples (2)-(5) can be taken care of by assigning clitics to the proper category. Interaction between different modes, controlled by corresponding unary operators, will be responsible for correct treatment of the facts in examples (6)-(12).
4. SIMPLE CLITIC CONSTRUCTIONS If we want our grammar fragment to cover the data presented above, it is essential that we assign the clitics to the right category. In this section we will build the appropriate type step by step, motivating our choice as we go along: the use of a higher order type, of hypothetical reasoning, of features, resource management modes, and unary control operators will all be reviewed. 4.1. Assigning a Category: Stepwise Refinement In accordance with the way pronouns are standardly treated, we assign the object clitics to a higher order category. To capture the fact that (in nonimperative sentences, to which we restrict ourselves here) they are situated immediately before their host verb, we assign them to a functor category looking rightward for a verbal argument. From this verbal argument an NP must be missing, namely the one that has been cliticized. This incompleteness will, through hypothetical reasoning, block co-occurrence of a clitic with its corresponding full NP form, thus ensuring the complementary distribution of the pair (clitic, NP) mentioned in section 3 (examples (2) and (3)). As the NP that has been cliticized does not necessarily come from a position adjacent to the verb, we do not use the normal slash operator but the extraction1 operator T • An item of category A^B will yield something of category A if it is combined with an item of category B somewhere.
289
French Object Clitics
(Note that this makes the slash operator a special instance of the extraction operator.) An informal natural deduction rule for the introduction of this operator can be found in the Appendix. If we assume the verbal argument of a clitic to be of category VP, the provisional category to which we assign the clitics is then of the form VP/(VPtNP)
Because we need to distinguish between finite, infinitival, and past participle verb phrases, which will be represented in this article simply by VPy (abbreviating NP\S), VP,-, and vppp, respectively, the clitic's category must be specified for a certain type of host verb as well. In the clitic types we will use the general category VP^ for verb phrases, where X is a variable over {/, i, pp}. To make certain that the grammatical function of a clitic is the same as that of the NP it replaces, we add a subscript for case to the missing NP in the clitic's category. This means that clitics take as their argument a verb phrase which is incomplete for an NP y , with Y ranging over {a, d} for accusative and dative NFS. In the derivations that follow, the variables X and Y will be directly instantiated to their proper values.8 The phonological bond between clitics and their hosts is a strong one: we saw in example (7) that nothing can intervene between the two. Following Moortgat and Oehrle's analysis of Dutch verb raising (section 2.3), we assume two modes for putting together linguistic material: "normal" phrasal composition mode •c and a stronger mode, equivalent to their head adjunction, which we will call clitic attachment •ca. Likewise, we assume two modes for the unary operators, Op for phrasal heads and O, for lexical heads (corresponding to Moortgat and Oehrle's Ol and O0, respectively), and the following rules of inclusion and interaction (we will not use the rule MC):
In light of the evidence from example (7), we assume the main operator of the clitic category to be in strong clitic attachment mode, whereas the missing hypothetical NP in the argument subcategory is combined with the verb in standard phrasal composition mode. The verb, being the head of the sentence, is equipped in the lexicon with an/ operator identifying it as the lexical head. Because clitics form a strong cluster with the verb, they
290
Esther Kraak
too have D/ as the main (outermost) operator in their lexical category. The general form of the category to which clitics are assigned is
The lexical entry that we are assuming for a transitive verb like voit ('sees') is the following:
Now that the foundation of our categorial treatment of object clitics has been laid, we can give a simple example to illustrate the working of the system. Consider the sentence Jean la voit, 'Jean sees her.' Derivation of this sentence is as follows (we use VP^ as abbreviation for NP^\ C S):
The goal of this derivation is to find out whether the string of words Jean la voit is a properly headed sentence (category D^ s). Via the rules for distribution of the diamond and a switch from Op to O,, the clitic and the verb both end up (reading from the bottom upward) with a O, diamond, which is the correct one considering their category. If we start from the top, the verb voit first combines with a hypothetical accusative NP, the one that has been cliticized. This hypothesis is then withdrawn through application of the I|c rule, resulting in a VP category missing an accusative NP somewhere. By taking this complex category as its argument, the clitic binds the argument position "occupied" by the hypothetical NP, and in this way fulfills the role of direct object to the verb. Now it also becomes clear how co-occurrence of the two forms is blocked: if the verb is combined with a real NP first, it is no longer possible to construe the proper argument for the clitic, as there is no hypothesis to be withdrawn.
French Object Clitics
291
Looking at the derivation, the impression might arise that it is necessary to present the system with a string in which the correct operators and brackets are already present. It has been shown by Moot (1996), however, that this is not the case. He uses labeled proof nets to show that the configuration of the antecedent is "projected" automatically in the unfolding of the lexical type assignments. What we see is that (analogous to the Projection Principle, for instance) structural information originating from the lexical assignments is projected through the derivation.
4.2. Coordination As it stands, the multimodal framework can handle the aspects of object clitic behavior that were demonstrated in section 3 with examples (2)-(5): object clitics do not occupy normal object NP positions and are in complementary distribution with full object NFS; they occur directly in front of their verbal host and can never appear without it. An interesting consequence of the way in which the system works is that the right predictions about the conjoinability properties of object clitic pronouns follow automatically from it. Consider example (8), repeated here as (13): (13) a. *Jean le et la uoit. ('Jean sees him and her.') b. *Jean le uoit et entend. ('Jean sees and hears him.') From example (13a) we see that it is not possible to conjoin two object clitics; example (13b) shows that an object clitic cannot have scope over a coordination of two verbs. To reflect the fact that the conjunction et can be used to combine all kinds of categories, as long as they are identical,9 we assign it to the category schema below, where X is a variable ranging over the entire set of categories. The fact that the conjunctive et constitutes the head of a conjunction is indicated by the box control operator in lexical head mode /:
As with the variables in the category for clitics, the variable X will be instantiated, in each specific derivation, in accordance with the category of the elements to be conjoined. In example (13b), for instance, X would be substituted by the lexical type of a transitive verb. To see how exactly the ungrammatical cases mentioned above are ruled out, let us try to derive
292
Esther Kraak
the first sentence, (13a):
Derivation fails at the point where the diamond in lexical head mode needs to be distributed over the phrasal composition (mode c) product, which is not allowed. And since the < )/ diamond cannot be turned back into a < )p diamond (because of the unidirectionality of the inclusion principle I) there is no way in which the derivation can proceed. The same happens with the second sentence, where the clitic le takes wide scope over a coordination of two verbs:
The basic idea behind the system, which causes these constructions to be ruled out as ungrammatical, is that the prosodically strongest mode of linguistic composition (clitic attachment mode) does not allow any material using the weaker mode of phrasal composition to occur within its domain, as long as headedness has not been checked. This is precisely the reason why things go wrong in the attempted derivations above: in both cases a phrasal composition structure is contained within a clitic attachment configuration.
5. CLITIC ORDER
Now that we are able to deal with sentences containing one clitic pronoun, the grammar must be refined in such a way that, in cases where
French Object Clitics
293
there are multiple clitics, it allows only derivation of those sentences in which the clitic order is correct, i.e, corresponds to the order template we have seen following example (11). In its present form any combination and order of object clitics can be derived, which is clearly an undesirable situation. Since the unary operators already identify the clitic-verb cluster as the head of a sentence, they are ideally suited for conveying information about the order within that cluster. To this effect, we inscribe the diamond and box operator with a feature representing a position in the order template. We let this feature range over the integers 0 to 8, corresponding to the position numbers in the following order schema:
The order -< defined for the position features is as follows: 0 •< 1 -< 2 •< 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 and O x l x 2 x 3 ' x 6 x 7 x 8. What this means is that the first and second person accusative clitics me, te, nous, vous, with order feature 3', can never precede (nor follow) any of the other object clitics.10 They can, however, follow a nominative clitic and precede en and y and, evidently, the verb. The feature-inscribed unary operators will have the form <3>j and H^ for the logical operators, and < >* for the structural counterpart of the diamond, where j ranges over the modes as before, and x ranges over the set of position features.11 Lexical entries for the third person accusative clitic la and the transitive verb uoit, for instance, now assume the form
Rules of introduction and elimination for the feature-inscribed unary operators remain the same, as do the inclusion rule and the weak distributivity rules Kl and K2. An important role in enforcing the correct clitic order will be played by the strong distribution rule K, as this rule distributes the diamonds within the clitic-verb cluster. We refine it as follows:
Together with its side condition, rule K states that, whenever a diamond in lexical head mode is distributed over a product in clitic attachment mode,
294
Esther Kraak
the left conjunct must get a diamond whose position feature strictly precedes that of the right conjunct. This will ensure that the left-to-right order of the clitics must always correspond to the order prescribed by the template, and that no two clitics with the same order feature can co-occur. Two derivations will illustrate the working of this rule. As a first example, consider the partial derivation of the grammatical sentence Jean la lui donne ('Jean gives it to her'):
The aim is to find out whether this particular string of words (composed as shown) derives something of category s which is properly headed and of which the clitic-verb cluster is well ordered. This last requirement is expressed by an order feature 0 in the box operator on the succedent category s. It can be regarded as a kind of start symbol for the clitic order, expressing the fact that any grammatical combination of clitics is still allowed to occur. After the box operator has changed into its residual diamond ( >° (via rule I Dp), has been distributed over the phrasal composition product to the right conjunct la lui donne (rule K2), and its mode has been switched from phrasal to lexical (rule I), the ( >/ diamond is distributed over the clitic attachment cluster via two applications of rule K. The first one distributes a diamond with order feature 4 to the left conjunct la, and a diamond with order feature 5 to the right conjunct lui donne, respecting the condition on K. In the second step this diamond with order feature 5 must be distributed over the clitic attachment product again, this time yielding a diamond with order feature 5 for the left conjunct lui, and one with order feature 8 for the right conjunct donne. We can tell that the order in the clitic-verb group is grammatical from the
French Object Clitics
295
top of the derivation: it shows the correct lexical entries for the object clitics and the verb. This is not the case with the ungrammatical—as a result of non-well-ordering—sentence *Jean lui la donne:
This derivation proceeds like the previous one, up to the point where rule K must be applied. The left conjunct of the outermost clitic attachment is lui, which gets a diamond with order feature 5. Because of the condition on rule K, the right conjunct la donne must get a diamond whose position feature follows 5, so for instance 6. The second application of K then distributes this diamond with order feature 6 to la and one with feature 8 to the verb donne.12 However, this distribution of diamonds does not result in a successful derivation: the lexical entry for la does not have E/ as its main operator, which is the outcome of the applications of rule K, but H/ instead. We could also have started the above derivation from the top, beginning with the correct lexical entry for la, but then the problem would arise at the point where rule K must be applied for the second time:
It is not possible for rule K to be used without violating the condition on its application, which says that the order feature on the first conjunct must
296
Esther Kraak
precede the order feature on the second. Since the left conjunct lui has an outermost diamond operator with order feature 5, and the diamond on the right conjunct la donne is inscribed with order feature 4, it is clear that the condition cannot be met and that failure of derivation must result. So we can see how the correct distribution of diamonds to clitics and verb is not deterministically chosen, but is in fact enforced by the interaction between rules and lexical entries: any wrong choice of diamond (with an order feature that does not correspond to the order feature in the category of the word) will bring about a failure of derivation. Only in those cases where the order within the clitic-verb group matches the order in the schema at the beginning of this section does our system produce a successful derivation, which is exactly what we aimed to achieve.
6. CLITICS AND VERBAL COMPLEXES Having shown the working of our system for simple clitic sentences, we will now consider cases in which the verb phrase consists of a finite verb followed by a past participle or an infinitive. 6.1. Modal and Perception Verbs Our first case concerns sentences that contain a clitic and a verbal complex consisting of a modal verb (for instance uouloir, devoir, aimer) and an infinitive. The following types are assigned to the infinitives:
Modal verbs never serve as hosts to clitics, for they do not allow clitic extraction out of the infinitival VP domain. This is evident from the following sentences: (14) a. Marie veut la manger. ('Marie wants to eat it.') b. *Marie la veut manger. In order to account for these data, the category for the modal verb must be such that the domainhood of its argument VP is respected. To this effect, the argument subcategory of the modal verb is equipped with a
French Object Clitics
297
complex of unary operators:
In words, what this combination of O and [Hip does is as follows: first, it should be noted that the diamond introduced here is of a different type than the unary operators used to convey information about headedness and clitic order. Crucially, the distribution rules do not apply to it, but otherwise it obeys the by now familiar rules of introduction and elimination. The function of this diamond is to impose a locality constraint13 on the infinitival VP argument of veut. It does so via the rule IO, that can only be applied if the entire antecedent structure is contained in unary brackets { >. If this is not the case, the diamonds on either side of the turnstile cannot be removed (reading from bottom to top) and derivation fails. After the domainhood of the argument VP has been successfully verified, GDp —just as in the other derivations we have seen—checks it for correct headedness and clitic order, through the introduction rule for the box and the distribution rule K. When every head in the infinitival verb phrase has been appropriately assigned a (structural) diamond operator with the correct order feature, all that remains is to determine whether the antecedent derives VP(, the category of an infinitival VP. In the following derivation, showing the grammaticality of the sentence Marie veut la manger, the clitic la will be instantiated as taking an infinitival argument (the rightmost part of the derivation is straightforward, as the reader can check):
We see that the structural diamond operator < > defining la manger as a closed-off domain is a necessary condition for derivational success. It is not conveniently put wherever it happens to be needed, but is entirely projected from the lexicon. Derivation of the ungrammatical *Marie la veut manger, where the direct object la has been cliticized outside the infinitival
298
Esther Kraak
domain of the embedded verb, is blocked as the hypothetical NP bound by the clitic cannot penetrate the diamond brackets around manger in order to be combined with the infinitive:
It is interesting to mention at this point that a logic with the modal reflexivity postulate A -» OA would enable us to derive the ungrammatical sentence above. By means of this postulate, the domain brackets ( > could simply be introduced around the structure [manger oc x] halfway up the deduction. Then it would become possible to apply rule IO, leading to a successful derivation. But, as we have seen, the reflexivity postulate is not included in the base logic for our control operators, so this problem of overgeneration does not occur in the present framework. Another group of verbs that do not allow arguments of the infinitival VP embedded under them to be cliticized comprises laisser and perception verbs such as uoir, entendre, ecouter, when these take an accusative NP argument which functions as the understood subject of the infinitive. Consider the sentences of example (10), repeated here with the verb uoit: (15) a. b. c. d.
Marie uoit Jean manger une poire. ('Marie sees Jean eat a pear.') *Marie la voit Jean manger. Marie le voit manger une poire. *Marie le la uoit manger.
The direct object une poire of the embedded verb manger cannot be cliticized onto the finite verb, as is shown by the ungrammaticality of sentences (15b) and (15d). However, cliticization of manger's subject Jean is allowed in sentence (15c). Note that the corresponding clitic le has accusative case, not nominative. In line with proposals made by Dowty
French Object Clitics
299
(1985), we therefore take the understood subject of the infinitive to be an accusative argument of the matrix verb. These considerations lead us to assign this group of verbs to the following category:
The argument VP constitutes a closed domain as in the case of the modal verbs, thus not allowing extraction of any vp-internal object. Since the understood subject of the embedded verb is not vp-internal but belongs to the matrix verb, it can freely be cliticized onto that verb, which is shown in the following derivation:
An attempt to derive sentences (15b, d) will result in failure for exactly the same reason as the derivation of *Marie la veut manger earlier in this section did: at a certain point we are left with the subgoal (manger) oc x \OMp VP,-. As the label x of the hypothetical accusative NP is unable to enter manger's domain, the sequent fails to meet the criterion for applicability of rule IO, demanding that the entire antecedent be contained in unary brackets. Thus the types for voit and veut correctly imply the ungrammaticality of sentences like (14b) and (15b, d) above. With the category for the perception verbs and laisser we can also derive instances of so-called "downstairs" cliticization where the clitics binding arguments of the infinitive are not extracted out of the VP,
300
Esther Kraak
domain: (16) a. Marie laisse Jean la manger. ('Marie lets Jean eat it.') b. Marie le laisse la manger. Because the clitic la is strongly attached to the infinitive, it remains within that verb's domain. This means that the entire VP argument of the matrix verb is contained within unary domain brackets, and therefore that the problem we encountered while attempting to derive *Marie la veut manger does not arise. Derivation of example (16b) for instance proceeds exactly like that of sentence (15c), if we replace (manger oc une poire) by (la oca manger). After successful checking of the antecedent's domain status and removal of the domain brackets, we are left to prove the goal [la oca manger] h- GD^ VP,-, an exercise we will again leave to the reader. 6.2. Clitic Climbing Finally, we consider cases of so-called "clitic climbing," in which clitics attach themselves to the matrix verb although they are complements of some verb embedded under it. The first major group of verbs exhibiting this phenomenon consists of the tense auxiliaries avoir and etre, which serve as hosts for clitics belonging to the past participle. Clitic climbing is obligatory, as can be seen from sentences in which clitics appear on the past participle: they are always ungrammatical (cf. (6d, e)). (17) a. Marie Va mange. ('Marie ate it.') b. *Marie a le mange. We assign the past participles of verbs like dormir, manger, and donner to the types given below:
Cliticization onto the tense auxiliary is in clitic attachment mode as before. We do not assume the auxiliary to form an equally strong cluster with the participle, since elements like pas and peut-etre can intervene between the two. However, to combine tense auxiliary and past participle in phrasal composition mode would not reflect the intuition that these two verbs together do constitute a stronger type of complex, for clitics are not allowed to occur in between. They must climb over the entire verbal complex instead, as we saw in example (17b). This intuition can be
French Object Clitics
301
formalized by introducing a third mode of linguistic composition, which we will call clause union mode. The clause union product and its residuals, the slashes, will be subscripted «, and the following interaction rules are added to the system:
In words, the distribution rule Ku for the clause union mode states that a clause union configuration consists of two verbs—two lexical heads. For both conjuncts receive a diamond in mode /, indicating their lexical head status, and with order feature 8, which the reader will remember is the position of the verb in the order schema for the clitic-verb cluster. We will see below how this forces clitics to climb over the entire verbal complex formed by the clause union product. The Mixed Associativity postulate defines clause union mode to take scope over phrasal composition mode. The tense auxiliaries est and a which trigger clitic climbing are assigned to the following category, where the slash operator in mode u reflects the clause union between auxiliary and participle:
With this category we can derive a sentence like Marie Va mange. Derivation fails for ungrammatical cases such as *Marie a le mange where the clitic is attached to the participle, because both conjuncts of the clause union product must get a diamond with order feature 8, for the verb position. Consequently, the clitic will not receive the diamond it needs: because of the condition on rule K the only possible order feature that can be distributed to le is 8, which does not match the order feature 4 in the clitic's lexical box operator. In addition, according to that same rule the second conjunct mange should be given an order feature following 8, which is impossible as 8 is the last position in the schema.
302
Esther Kraak
The other group of verbs showing obligatory clitic climbing contains faire, and the perception verbs and laisser insofar as these take a dative complement which functions as the understood subject of the embedded infinitival verb. For instance (see also (9a, b): (18) a. Marie fait manger une poire a Jean. ('Marie makes Jean eat a pear.') b. Marie la fait manger a Jean. c. Marie la lui fait manger. d. *Marie fait la manger a Jean. The clitic la corresponding to the (vp-internal) direct object of manger must attach itself to the front of the finite-infinitival verb cluster as in sentences (18b) and (18c); cliticization onto the infinitive is not allowed, as can be seen from the ungrammaticality of (18d). The fact that clitic climbing is obligatory in these cases is indicative of a clause union relation between the two verbs. We therefore assign this group of clitic climbing triggers to the following category:
As with the versions of the perception verbs and laisser that host cliticization of their vp,-external accusative NP argument, here the dative NP "subject" of the embedded verb cliticizes onto the main verb, of which it is a complement. But unlike the former verbs, clitic climbing verbs such as faire allow the vprinternal NP to be extracted from its domain and cliticized onto the triggering main verb, as in examples (18b, c). The category assumed here for the clitic climbing verbs produces the desired derivational results for these constructions. That the clause union mode does indeed force a clitic to climb, instead of allowing it to occupy a downstairs position, becomes clear when we try to derive (18d), *Marie fait la manger a Jean. At a certain point in the derivation, the diamond in lexical head mode must be distributed over the structure [fait ou [la oca manger]]. Following rule Ku, both conjuncts fait and la manger receive a diamond with order feature 8. But now we can see that we are in the same situation as before when we attempted to derive the ungrammatical sentence (lib), * Marie a le mange: the clitic cannot get a diamond carrying the order feature 4 which it needs in accordance with its lexical category, as such a distribution would violate the condition on rule K. So, with this last refinement of the framework, all the facts about the behavior of French object clitics presented in section 3 can now be accounted for by our grammar fragment.
303
French Object Clitics
7. COMPARISON WITH OTHER ANALYSES In this section, the analysis of preceding pages is compared with and Head-Driven Phrase Structure HPSG analysis of French clitics in
French object clitics presented in the other analyses in Categorial Grammar Grammar. In particular, we look at the Miller and Sag (1995).14
7.1. Clitics as Pronominal Affixes Following the argumentation of Miller (1991), who applies the criteria for distinguishing affixation from postlexical cliticization (given by (Zwicky and Pullum, 1983)) to the case of clitics in French, Miller and Sag, (1997) consider clitics to be pronominal affixes instead of independent syntactic words. They propose a lexical rule of pronominal affixation that turns a word into a cliticized word by removing one or more complements from the word's COMPS list, thereby reducing its valence. These complements must be of type afftixal-synsem). Since complements are identified with members of the ARG-ST list, a cliticized word will have one or more elements of type aff in ARG-ST. Morphological realization of the pronominal affixes is then triggered by the presence of these aff-type elements. Thus the rule guarantees complementary distribution of clitics and their full NP counterparts. Unlike Miller and Sag, we see no reason to draw a firm distinction between syntax and morphology. Rather, we like to think of the relation between the two as a sliding scale. This is not to claim that the distinction does not matter. Instead of embracing a strictly modular view, however, we take it that syntax and morphology are intricately intertwined. In our analysis this is expressed by the coexistence of different modes of linguistic composition, reflecting varying strength of prosodic attachment. The strongest mode, connecting clitics with their host, occupies a position nearer the "morphological side" of the scale, whereas the weakest mode, combining verbs and their arguments, is situated on the "syntactic side." Since we consider clitics as having their own lexical entries, this variation in compositional strength can be entirely projected from the lexicon. It is also worth noting that the complementary distribution of a clitic and its corresponding full NP, for which Miller and Sag need the abovementioned lexical rule, follows in our account from the interaction between the clitic's higher order type and the general mechanism of hypothetical reasoning triggered by that type. As the clitic binds the hypothetical position of the noun phrase it replaces, it will automatically be identified with that missing NP, thus blocking their simultaneous occur-
304
Esther Kraak
rence. It is important to see that in our view it is not the verb which selects for a "clitic" argument, as is the case in Miller and Sag's lexical rule. Instead, it is the clitic which serves as the functor, selecting a verb that is unsaturated for the NP complement whose role is fulfilled by the clitic. Combining the clitic with its verb argument (binding the hypothetical argument position) yields a verb whose valence is reduced with that same NP complement. Since we work in a resource-conscious logic where each assumption can and must be used only once, there is always exactly one clitic that binds an argument position. Additional constraints enforcing this uniqueness, as needed by Miller and Sag in order to prevent affixal haplology, are therefore superfluous.
7.2. Clitic Order
Miller and Sag treat the restrictions on order and co-occurrence of clitics within the clitic cluster by characterizing it as an ordered sequence of slots. In addition, they assume a substantial number of cluster conditions, stating for each of the slots whether and how it is to be filled, depending on the presence of certain elements on the ARG-ST list of the cliticized word. This is in line with their view of cliticization as an entirely morphological phenomenon. As we mentioned earlier, our account of cliticization does not embrace this modular view. Instead, the make-up of the clitic cluster results from the interaction of lexical type-assignments for the clitics with a language-specific order schema and generally valid deductive principles. In this sense, our position is more in line with work by Kathol (1995), who analyzes word order in terms of so-called topological fields. Sentences are regarded as consisting of an ordered sequence of fields or domains, in each of which only certain types of constituents occur. Every word is explicitly marked in the lexicon with a feature for the specific field(s) where its occurrence is allowed. This corresponds to our representation of clitics as lexical items marked for a specific position within the clitic cluster15 whereas in Miller and Sag's view it is the ARG-ST list of the clitic host which constitutes the locus of information relevant to clitic ordering. Another (categorial) treatment of cliticization which makes use of order features is that of Morrill and Gavarro (1992), who propose an account of Catalan clitics similar to the analysis put forward in the present article. They treat clitic order with a feature for cliticization class. This feature, in the form of an integer, is connected with both subtypes s in the higher order type which Morrill and Gavarro assume for the clitics. The idea is
305
French Object Clitics
that the value of this feature on the argument category of the clitic is higher than that of its result category. Thus, clitics that appear near the front of the clitic cluster will have lower values in their argument categories than those appearing closer to the verb. The verbs themselves, following the clitic cluster, have the highest value. The main difference with the analysis presented in this article is that, in the multimodal grammar logic, checking of these features is effected through deductive principles, whereas in Morrill and Gavarro's account it is done by means of unification.16
7.3. Clitic Climbing: Argument Composition The analysis of clitic climbing proposed by Miller and Sag17 is described by them as a case of argument composition: a clitic climbing trigger combines with an unsaturated verb and then with the arguments selected by that verb. In the lexical entry of such a trigger, the COMPS requirements of the verb argument are added to the trigger's own COMPS list, and their occurrences are identified via reentrancy. As Miller and Sag point out, the notion of argument composition is related to the concept of division type-shift in Categorial Grammar, which can be schematized as A/B ->
(A/C)/(B/C)
The analogy becomes clear if we take A/B to be the initial type of the clitic climbing trigger, B/C the type of its (unsaturated) verb argument, and C the complement of that verb argument. The higher order type for the trigger verb, on the right-hand side of the arrow, requires to be combined first with the unsaturated verb B/C, and after that with the verb's complement C. Accounts of clitic climbing based on a rule of division have been proposed in the field of Categorial Grammar by Casadio (1993) for Italian and Nishida (1991) for Spanish. However, these categorial analyses adopt a version of division valid only in systems which include the structural rule of Permutation, leading to overgeneration in the form of ungrammatical word order. A drawback of all analyses of clitic climbing founded on division is that, compared to the multimodal approach advocated in this article, they constitute a derivational detour. Why this is so can best be illustrated with an example. Consider the sentence Jean a vu Marie ('Jean saw Marie'), where the tense auxiliary a is a clitic climbing trigger. Deriving division in a proper (but unimodal) natural deduction setting, we arrive at the
306
Esther Kraak
following analysis for this sentence:
We see the division category for a being derived via hypothetical reasoning18 (the initial type and the higher order type are boxed for the sake of clarity). Then the newly obtained category is combined with unsaturated vu (its first argument, VPpp/NPa) and after that with the participle's complement Marie (its second argument, Npa). The immediate succession of an Introduction and an Elimination step acting on the same connective, in the middle of the derivation, indicates the possibility of simplification. Here, the difference between analyses based on rules (such as division) and deductive approaches like ours becomes clear: the former lack a notion of normalization of proofs, in the sense that the proofs they produce are not necessarily minimal derivations without any detours. In the deductive account, which does possess this normalization property, the steps needed above for the derivation of the division type can be pruned away, resulting in the following derivation:
French Object Clitics
307
As was shown in section 6.2, this analysis yields the desired results for the clitic climbing data. Among other things, it accounts in a principled way for the fact that, in French, cliticization on a past participle is not allowed. The analyses based on division mentioned above, on the other hand, need to stipulate application of this rule to be blocked specifically for verbs in past participial form. There is also another, more serious problem with the division-based approaches to clitic climbing, evidence of which is given in the first derivation of this section. In the process of constructing the higher order type, the structural rule of Associativity is needed to enable application of the I/ rule withdrawing the hypothetical NPa. Since the structural rules in their unimodal version are either always available or never, the consequence is that full Associativity must hold, with the consequent loss of constituent sensitivity. The multimodal analysis presented in the second derivation assumes restricted (mixed) Associativity only as an interaction principle, relating modes that are in themselves nonassociative, and therefore does not cause the system to collapse into constituent-insensitivity.
8. CONCLUSION It has been shown in this article that a deductive approach to cliticization is fruitful in that it throws new light on the "fine-structure" of grammatical resource management. Comparing the proposed multimodal approach with the resource management assumptions underlying competing analyses (both categorial and HPSG-style), two points have been made.19 First, from the point of view of derivational economy, argument composition approaches to clitic climbing are suboptimal: they represent detours that in the present deductive setting are eliminated as a result of proof-normalization. Second, the argument composition analyses discussed here violate linear order sensitivity (Casadio, 1993; Nishida, 1991) and/or constituent structure sensitivity (Miller and Sag, 1995; Monachesi, 1995). This means that, both within the unimodal categorial and the HPSG-based analyses, extra non-logical principles have to be imposed to constrain grammatical resource management. Such non-logical principles can be avoided as a result of the more delicate multimodal resource management regime advocated here. The framework used here for the analysis of French object clitics needs to be extended in a number of ways. I have already touched upon the idea
308
Esther Kraak
of adding a feature logic component to handle those features that were simply represented by indices in the above. The fragment can also be made to cover the rest of the French clitics: subject clitics, reflexives, en and y. Moreover, preliminary investigations into the realm of Italian object clitics strongly suggest that clitic systems from other Romance languages can be accounted for as well. Cross-linguistic variation can be captured by choosing different packages of resource management rules for the different languages. These three topics constitute my aims for future research.
9. APPENDIX: THE FRAMEWORK Logical Rules
French Object Clitics
309
Resource Management Rules
NOTES The natural deduction format is used here for ease of presentation, but it does not constitute a proper basis for proof search. However, equivalence of the natural deduction, axiomatic, and Gentzen sequent presentations has been proven (cf. Moortgat and Oehrle, 1996, and Moortgat, 1997). The latter has the property of decidability: it will tell us whether there is a derivation for a given string or not. Every possible step is examined, guaranteeing a complete search producing all possible derivations if there exist any, and a negative answer otherwise. 2 The product rules will not be needed here, as we will not make use of lexical categories containing the product operator. For the sake of completeness, however, they are included in the Appendix. The category formulas in these rules are not annotated with semantical terms, as the unary control operators are considered to be semantically inert. 4 In this respect they differ from the box operator proposed by Morrill et al. (1990), which requires a reflexive and transitive interpretation. 5 In this sense, they provide the deductive basis for the Head Feature Principle in GPSG and HPSG. However, the distribution principles are more flexible than the HFP in that they allow multiple headedness in head adjunction mode. This difference is essential for Moortgat and Oehrle's analysis of Dutch verb raising and, as we will see shortly, also for an adequate treatment of French objects clitics. Throughout this article we will use the term bottom up in the following sense: the bottom of a derivation is its conclusion, the goal to be proven, whereas the top is constituted by the premises—the lexical entry axioms. 7 Moortgat (1997) shows that this operator can be defined in the present def framework as follows: A\B =A/OE\B, where the unary operators give access to
310
Esther Kraak
modally controlled versions of the rules for Associativity and Commutativity, which look like this (the condition holds for each of the rules):
with some A, of the form (A) When the desired configuration has been reached, the diamond and box operators cancel each other out, such that OD^B can be used as a normal item of category B. 8 A topic for further research in this respect would be to see whether it is possible to combine the multimodal framework with a feature logic along the lines of Dorre and Manandhar (1995). 9 We restrict ourselves here to coordination of like types. 10 Note that this schema differs from the template following example (11) on two points. First, whereas the template does not allow combination of l,2DATwith 3 DAT clitics, our schema does. This leaves room for sentences such as Jean me lui semble fidele ('Jean seems to me to be faithful to her'), considered grammatical by a number of speakers. Second, in the schema we have separated 1,2ACC from SDAT clitics, blocking derivability of such sentences as *// me lui presente ('He presents me to her'). Because SACC clitics can co-occur with 3DAT clitics, they are positioned in the same branch of our order schema. As a consequence, the 1,2ACC clitics are separated from the 3ACC clitics, whereas the template does not prohibit simultaneous occupation of positions III and IV. As far as we know, however, there seems to be no evidence refuting our analysis. 1] It is also possible to express other features in the unary operators, such as case or verb form. We will not pursue this line of thought here, but see Versmissen (1996) for an implementation. 12 In sentences without clitics, the verb gets a diamond with the correct order feature 8 via a special rule (called 0; see the Appendix) which takes a diamond with order feature 0 to a diamond with order feature 8. The idea behind this rule is that, trivially, the empty clitic sequence is well ordered. 13 Comparable to the function of the "bracket" operators of Morrill (1994), who assumes a less restrictive logic, however. 14 Miller and Sag (1995) was the representative HPSG analysis at the time when contributions to the present volume were written. The reader should notice that in the revised analysis of Miller and Sag (1997)-summarized in Abeille et al. (this volume)-the use of lexical rules has been abandoned. 15 For a more general categorial implementation of the concept of word order domains, see Versmissen (1996). 16 There are other differences as well, concerning the unary operators Morrill and Gavarro introduce for the treatment of medial cliticization and clauselocality. The logic of these operators is less restrictive than the pure logic of residuation for our diamond and box operators. As was pointed out in section 6.1
French Object Clitics
311
(cf. also the end of section 2.2.1), such a less restrictive logic can lead to overgeneration. 17 And proposed by Monachesi (1995) for clitic climbing in Italian. 18 Note that lexical assignment of the trigger verb to the higher order type is not an option, as this would result in multiple type-assignments to enable selection of verbal arguments with different complement structures. ^EDITORS' NOTE: The editors of this volume have pointed out to the author that her criticism of HPSG-style analyses is based on some purported "translation" of these analyses into categorial grammar-something that the authors whom Kraak cites have never proposed. To the editors of this volume it, therefore, seems far from clear how HPSG analyses that employ argument-composition techniques are to be fit into this same scheme of evaluation as analyses stated in the framework of categorial grammar. After all, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar constitutes a framework with radically different logical foundations and with radically different assumptions about the underlying grammar formalism and the grammatical constraints imposed on individual grammars.
REFERENCES Abeille, A., D. Godard, and I. A. Sag (1998). Two kinds of composition in French complex predicates In Syntax and Semantics (E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol, and T. Nakazawa, eds.), Vol. 30, 1-41, Academic Press, San Diego. Casadio, C. (1993). A Categorial Approach to Cliticization and Agreement in Italian. CLUEB, Bologna. Dorre, J., and S. Manandhar (1995). On constraint-based Lambek Calculi. In P. Blackburn and M. de Rijke (eds.), Specifying Syntactic Structures. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Title appeared in 1997. Dowty, D. (1985). On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 291-331. Girard, J.-Y. (1987). Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1-102. Hepple, M. (1990). The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh. Kathol, A. (1995). Linearization-Based German Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Kurtonina, N., and M. Moortgat (1995). Structural control. In P. Blackburn and M. de Rijke (eds.), Specifying Syntactic Structures. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Title appeared in 1997. Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154-170. Miller, P. H. (1991). Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.
312
Esther Kraak
Miller, P. H., and I. A. Sag (1995). Une analyse lexicaliste des affixes pronominaux en Frangais. Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 24(1), 135-171. Miller, P. H., and I. A. Sag (1997). French Clitic Movement without Clitics or Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 573-639. Monachesi, P. (1995). A Grammar of Italian Clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, ITK/TILDIL Dissertation Series 1995-3, Tilburg University. Moortgat, M. (1996). Multimodal linguistic inference. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 5(3-4), 349-385. (Also in R. Kempson (ed.), Bulletin of the IGPL 3(2,3), 371-401, special issue on Deduction and Language.) Moortgat, M. (1997). Categorial type logics. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Moortgat, M., and G. Morrill (1991). Heads and Phrases. Type Calculus for Dependency and Constituent Structure. Unpublished manuscript, OTS, Utrecht. Moortgat, M., and R. Oehrle (1994). Adjacency, dependency and order. In Proceedings 9th Amsterdam Colloquium, 447-466. Moortgat, M., and R. Oehrle (1996). Structural abstractions. In V. M. Abrusci and C. Casadio (eds.), Proofs and Linguistic Categories. Applications of Logic to the Analysis and Implementation of Natural Language. Proceedings of the 1996 Roma Workshop, CLUEB, Bologna. Moot, R. (1996). Proof Nets and Labeling for Categorial Grammar Logics. Masters thesis, Universiteit Utrecht. Morrill, G. (1994). Type Logical Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Morrill, G., and A. Gavarro (1992). Catalan clitics. In A. Lecomte (ed.), Word Order in Categorial Grammar, 211-232, Editions Adosa, Clermont-Ferrand. Morrill, G., N. Leslie, M. Hepple, and G. Barry (1990). Categorial deductions and structural operations. In G. Barry and G. Morrill (eds.), Studies in Categorial Grammar. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, 1-21, Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh. Nishida, C. (1991). A non-transformational analysis of clitic climbing in Spanish. In Proceedings of WCCFL 9, 395-409. Stabler, E. P. (1996). Acquiring and Parsing Languages with Movement. Forthcoming. Versmissen, J. A. G. (1996). Grammatical Composition: Modes, Models, Modalities. Logical and Linguistic Aspects of Multimodal Categorial Grammars. Ph.D. dissertation, OTS Utrecht. Zwicky, A., and G. Pullum (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59.3, 501-513.
ITALIAN RESTRUCTURING VERBS: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS PAOLA MONACHESI Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS Utrecht University Utrecht, The Netherlands
1. INTRODUCTION In Italian, there are some verbs which act as a class with respect to certain phenomena such as clitic climbing, long NP-movement, tough constructions, and auxiliary selection. They are usually called restructuring verbs after Rizzi (1982), who proposed a restructuring rule in order to account for their properties. In the first part of this article, I propose an analysis of these verbs in terms of argument composition. It is based on the idea that the arguments of the complement verb can be raised to become arguments of the restructuring verb. The analysis will be cast within the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard and Sag, 1987, 1994) and will capture intuitions similar to those underlying Rizzi's Restructuring Rule (Rizzi, 1982) and the Clause Reduction analysis of Aissen and Perlmutter (1983). A comparison will be made with an alternative account based on the use of nonlocal features and the Nonlocal Feature Principle, which is the mechanism used within HPSG to account for Unbounded Dependency Constructions. However, I show that the argument composition analysis is indeed the most appropriate to provide a uniform account of the properties of the restructuring verbs. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderiuational Syntax
313
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
314
Paola Monachesi
The second part of the article addresses the issue of dialectal variation. I consider restructuring verbs in Salentino, a southern Italian dialect, and I focus on one of their properties: clitic climbing. In particular, I consider the behavior of the verb ulire 'want' in the variety of Salentino spoken in the provinces of Brindisi and Taranto. This verb is rather peculiar in that it allows clitic climbing out of a finite clause. I show that the argument composition analysis proposed for Standard Italian can account for this property and I suggest that within HPSG the parameterization of linguistic variation occurs in the lexicon.
2. BASIC FACTS
Rizzi (1982) identifies three classes of restructuring verbs in Italian: (1) Restructuring verbs • modal verbs (e.g., potere 'can,' dovere 'must,' volere 'want') • aspectual verbs (e.g., cominciare 'to begin,' finire 'to finish,' continuare 'to continue') • motion verbs (e.g., venire 'to come,' andare 'to go,' tornare 'to come back') As already mentioned, restructuring verbs exhibit certain properties, among which is clitic climbing. This is one of the most obvious diagnostic revealing complex predicate formation: (2) Anna lo vuole compare. Anna cl.(acc) wants to buy 'Anna wants to buy it.' In this construction, a clitic which originates as dependent of a complement verb can climb and attach to the trigger verb. Therefore, it seems that the two verbs act as a unit with respect to clitic placement and that what we have is a complex verb. In Standard Italian, clitic climbing is optional with these verbs; the following sentence where the clitic stays within the lower clause is also grammatical:1 (3) Anna vuole comprarlo. Anna wants to buy cl.(acc) 'Anna wants to buy it.'
Italian Restructuring Verbs
315
In Italian, there is a rather peculiar clitic, namely, the third person plural pronoun low. There are certain differences between low and the other clitics; however, they pattern alike with respect to climbing in the presence of restructuring verbs. In fact, these verbs also trigger the climbing of low 'to them,' as can be seen in the following example: (4) Non sapevano cos a potesse low capitare. not know what could to them happen 'They didn't know what could happen to them.' It should be noticed that low does not appear before the finite verb, as is the case for the monosyllabic clitic in (2). It is well known that morphosyntactic features determine the direction of attachment for monosyllabic clitics; they are proclitic if the verb is finite and enclitic if the verb is nonfinite or imperative. On the other hand, the placement of low is insensitive to the finiteness of the verb. In fact, this clitic usually follows the verb.2 As in the case of monosyllabic clitics, climbing of low is optional with these verbs. This is shown in the following example, where the clitic stays within the lower clause: (5) Non sapevano cosa potesse capitare low. not know what could happen to them 'They didn't know what could happen to them.' Restructuring verbs have also the property of triggering long NP-movement. If the clitic si, which acts as a passivizing element, is attached to the restructuring verb, the direct object of the verb in the embedded clause acts as subject of the restructuring verb: (6) Queste case si vogliono vendere a caw prezzo. these houses SI want to sell at high price 'These houses are wanted to be sold at a high price.' In this example, queste case originates as direct object of vendere and becomes the subject of si vogliono. Another property which is usually associated with this class of verbs is that they trigger auxiliary change. In fact, restructuring verbs which have avere as auxiliary can change it into essere if the embedded verb requires essere as auxiliary: (7) a. Rocco ha voluto partire. Rocco has wanted to leave 'Rocco has wanted to leave.' b. Rocco e voluto partire. Rocco is wanted to leave 'Rocco has wanted to leave.'
316
Paola Monachesi
Furthermore, in the presence of restructuring verbs, the Italian tough construction which is strictly bounded, appears to be unbounded: (8) Questa canzone e facile da cominciare a cantare. This song is easy to begin to sing In this case, the object of the lower verb questa canzone acts as superficial subject of the higher verb. 3. THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF RESTRUCTURING VERBS Before showing how an approach in terms of argument composition can account for the different properties of restructuring verbs, I will address the controversial issue of their syntactic structure. Rizzi (1982) proposed a rule of Restructuring to account for clitic climbing and for the other properties exhibited by restructuring verbs. He argued that sentences to which Restructuring has been applied have a different structure from those ones which have not undergone this rule. Restructuring turns a bisentential structure into a simple sentence. Therefore, if no clitic climbing occurs, Rizzi associates a bisentential structure to the sentence Anna vuole comprarlo given in example (3): (9) Anna vuole [s comprarlo]. While for a case of clitic climbing like Anna lo vuole comprare exemplified in (2), there will be a simple structure where the two verbs are reanalyzed into a verbal complex: (10)
Anna [v lo vuole comprare].
Rizzi considers clitic climbing as a sign that Restructuring has been triggered and he suggests that while there is motivation to let the embedded verb and its complements form a constituent if no clitic climbing occurs, this is not the case if clitic climbing is triggered. Rizzi gives four tests, on the basis of which he argues that the embedded verb and the following material do not form a constituent if clitic climbing is triggered. They are summarized here: • Pied-piping applies to an infinitive with following material, but not in a sentence where clitic climbing has occurred: (11) a. Questi argomenti, a parlarti dei quali verrb these topics, to talk cl.(dat) of which will come al piu presto, mi sembrano interessanti. very soon, cl.(dat) seem interesting 'These topics, to talk to you about which I will come as soon as possible, seem very interesting to me.'
Italian Restructuring Verbs
317
b. *Questi argomenti, a parlare del quali ti these topics to talk of which cl.(dat) verrb al piu presto... will come very soon... • Clefting can apply to an infinitive with following material, but not in a sentence where clitic climbing has occurred: (12) a. E proprio a riportargli i soldi che sto andando. is just to bring back cl.(dat) the money that am going 'It is really to bring him back the money that I am about to.' b. *E proprio a riportare i soldi che gli sto andando. is just to bring back the money that cl.(dat) am going • Right Node Raising (RNR) can apply to an infinitive with following material, but not in a sentence where clitic climbing has occurred:3 (13) a. Mario vorrebbe, ma a mio parere non potra mai, Mario would like but to my opinion not can never pagargli il debito. pay cl.(dat) the debt 'Mario would like, but in my opinion will never be able, to pay his debt to him.' b. * Mario gli vorrebbe, ma a mio parere non potra mai Mario cl.(dat) would like but to my opinion not can never pagare il debito. pay the debt • Complex NP shift can postpose an infinitive with following material, but not in a sentence where clitic climbing has occurred: (14) a. Fra qualche giomo verrb a Firenze ad esporti in few day will come to Florence to submit cl.(dat) la mia idea. the my idea 'In a few days, I will come to Florence to submit my idea to you.' b. *Fra qualche giomo ti verrb a Firenze ad esporre in few day cl.(dat) will come to Florence to submit la mia idea. the my idea The constituency tests proposed by Rizzi are based on the idea that constituents can move. The ungrammatical examples where clitic climbing has occurred show that the embedded verb and its complements do not form a constituent since they cannot move. Given an example such as (11),
318
Paola Monachesi
Rizzi considers the following structures as input to wh-mouement: (15) a. Questi argomenti [s verro a parlarti dei quali] alpiu presto. b. Questi argomenti [s ti verro a parlare dei quali] al piu presto. In the former case, the string a parlarti dei quali is a constituent and can be preposed, while the latter case shows an instance of clitic climbing. The string a parlare dei quali is not a constituent and it is for this reason that the ungrammatical (lib) is ruled out. If the embedded verb and its complements do not form a constituent, there are two possible configurations which are available in the case of clitic climbing: the main verb and the embedded verb can merge together in a sort of compound structure or there is a flat structure where the infinitival verb and its complements are sisters of the restructuring verb. Both structures are exemplified below, where the abbreviation CPL stands for complements:
As Rizzi points out, the choice between the two structures is quite difficult since there is not much clear evidence in favor of one or the other. However, it should be noticed that lexical material such as adverbs can intervene between the two verbs, arguing against a verbal compound: (17) Anna lo vuole immediatamente comprare. Anna cl.(acc) wants to immediately buy 'Anna wants to buy it immediately.' Therefore, I will assume that restructuring verbs are associated with the following structures:
Italian Restructuring Verbs
319
The flat structure will be associated with the clitic climbing configuration, while the hierarchical structure will represent those cases where the clitic remains attached to the lower verb.4 It should be noticed that Moore (1991) (a.o.) proposes instead that in Spanish, the embedded verb and the following material do form a VP constituent in cases of clitic climbing. He addresses the issue of the constituency tests and he says that not all of Rizzi's tests are possible in Spanish, but the clefting test is:5 (19) a. Lo que quiero es escribirles una carta. cl. that want is write cl. a letter 'What I want is to write them a letter.' b. *Lo que les quiero es escribir una carta. cl. that cl. want is write a letter The test produces the same result as in Italian, showing that the infinitival and the following material do not form a VP if clitic climbing has occurred. However, he argues against the clefting test, by saying that VPS may not cleft, since clefting may not strand an auxiliary: (20)
*Lo que ha fue llegado tardi. what he has was arrived late
This is also the case in Italian, but following Napoli (1981) it can be argued that this fact constitutes evidence for a flat structure also in the case of auxiliary verbs.6 He also shows that, in Spanish, right node raising is possible with upstairs cliticization. Furthermore, he discusses the coordination test, which is not mentioned by Rizzi; in Spanish it is possible to have a coordination of two VPS with a restructuring verb which has undergone clitic climbing: (21) Juan le quiere mandar un regalo y comprar un coche. Juan cl.(acc) wants send a gift and buy a car 'Juan wants to send her/him a gift and buy her/him a car.' This is also the case in Italian and it constitutes a potential problem for a flat structure: (22) Rocco le vuole spedire un regalo e scrivere una lettera. Rocco cl.(acc) wants to send a gift and write a letter 'Rocco wants to send a gift to her and write a letter to her.' Abeille and Godard (personal communication) suggest analyzing similar cases which occur with French auxiliaries as instances of Non Constituent Coordination. Their suggestion could be adopted also in the case of restructuring verbs; in fact, cases of Non Constituent Coordination are
320
Paola Monachesi
well attested in Italian: (23) Rocco scrivera una lettera a Martina e una cartolina a Vito. Rocco will write a letter to Martina and a postcard to Vito 'Rocco will write a letter to Martina and a postcard to Vito.' Therefore, if example (22) is assimilated to them, it will not constitute a serious problem for an analysis in terms of flat structure.
4. THE ANALYSIS
The data I have presented in section 2 show that restructuring verbs act as a class with respect to a variety of phenomena. In Monachesi (1993a) and in Monachesi (1995), I have suggested that an analysis in terms of argument composition can provide a uniform account of the different properties of these verbs. The idea behind this approach is that the arguments of a verbal complement are raised to become arguments of the restructuring verb, thus creating a verbal complex. The mechanism crucially relies on the notion of structure sharing which is widely used within HPSG. In this case, there will be structure sharing between the complements of the embedded verb and those of the main verb. The mechanism of argument composition was first introduced in HPSG by Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1990) for the treatment of the German verb cluster, and it is currently employed in the analysis of Dutch (Rentier, 1994; van Noord and Bouma, 1994), French (Miller and Sag, 1993; Abeille and Godard, 1994; Miller and Sag, 1995; Abeille et al, 1998), and Polish (Przepiorkowski and Kupsc, 1997). Its effect is similar to that of division in Categorial Grammar (Moortgat, 1988), which has also been used to account for Spanish clitic climbing (Nishida, 1991). In the following sections, I show how the argument composition analysis can account for the relevant properties of Italian restructuring verbs. However, it could be argued that certain properties of these verbs could be better treated as instances of long distance movement operations. Within HPSG, it would be possible to make use of nonlocal features and the Nonlocal Feature Principle, which is the mechanism used to deal with Unbounded Dependencies Constructions. Clitic climbing can be thus analyzed as a case of unbounded dependency. The nonlocal features can be employed to encode the information that a clitic, which originates as argument of the embedded verb, can appear attached to the higher verb. In section 5, I discuss the consequences of such an analysis and show the problems it faces. In particular, specific locality constraints need to be
Italian Restructuring Verbs
321
postulated and certain generalizations are missed if the analysis is extended to account for the various phenomena which are triggered by restructuring verbs. 4.1. Restructuring Verbs and Argument Composition In section 3, I have suggested that two different structures should be associated with restructuring verbs. In fact, restructuring verbs can subcategorize for a VP, but they can also inherit the complements of their infinitival verbal argument. It is the latter configuration that will be necessary to allow clitic climbing. Within HPSG, a lexical rule can be used to establish a relation between these two sets of words:7 (24)
Argument Composition Lexical Rule (ACLR)
The lexical rule relates words, namely restructuring verbs which subcategorize for a saturated VP, with other ones which have the same properties, except that they do not subcategorize for a VP, but for a verbal argument and the complements of the latter. The partition of SYNSEM in phrase synsem (p-ss) and word synsem (w-ss) together with the appropriate feature declaration represents a way to distinguish between words and phrases, alternatively the attribute LEX + / - could be used. In this rule, the notation © stands for the append relation, while the tag GO indicates structure sharing between the elements in the COMPS list of the infinitival and that of the restructuring verb. The condition CUTS { } ensures that argument composition occurs only if the embedded verb does not constitute a cliticized verb form. Complements will be ordered according to Linear Precedence constraints; in particular, the following constraints are relevant in this context: • A lexical head precedes all its complements. • Verbal complements are ordered according to the obliqueness hierarchy. • A lexical verbal complement precedes a phrasal complement.
322
Paola Monachesi
The lexical rule presented above should relate only verbs which belong to the restructuring class. In this work, I will assume that the set of the relevant verbs is specified lexically since there is a big variation among speakers as to which verbs belong to the restructuring class.8 As noticed in Rizzi (1982), for every Italian speaker there is a welldefined class of verbs which allows clitic climbing, and opposed to it there is another class of verbs which clearly does not trigger it. In between the two classes there is a group of verbs for which judgments vary from speaker to speaker, as in the case of the conative verbs (e.g. cercare, tentare, provare 'to try') and sometimes there are isolated verbs which according to some speakers trigger clitic climbing, such as the verb sembrare 'seem.' It seems that membership in the class of trigger verbs is rather idiosyncratic, and this is even more evident if dialects are taken into consideration, as will become clear in section 6.3.1. Attempts to derive the class of trigger verbs semantically, though interesting, are not very convincing since they are not sufficiently developed to capture the idiosyncratic variation which is typical of restructuring verbs. For example, Burzio (1986) suggests that trigger verbs are characterized as being semantically impoverished. He presents the following minimal pair: (25) a. Lo voglio leggere. cl.(acc) want read 'I want to read it.' b. *Lo desidero leggere. cl.(acc) wish read 'I wish to read it.' According to him, volere acts as a trigger verb because it is semantically weak, while this is not the case for desiderare? However, he does not spell out this idea in more detail, so it is difficult to see what its scientific content is. The concept of semantic impoverishment is reconsidered by Emonds (1996), but also in his case no attempt is made to make this idea more concrete. A more formalized attempt to derive the class of trigger verbs semantically is Napoli (1981). She claims that the rule of Restructuring proposed by Rizzi should apply whenever the structural conditions are met, after which a rule of semantic interpretation applies. If the latter rule is blocked for some reason, the sentence does not receive an interpretation and it is therefore judged as not acceptable. According to her, it is through the rule of semantic interpretation that it is possible to determine which verbs act as a trigger and which do not. While I believe that there might be some semantic characterization that defines the set of trigger verbs, I think that the work of Napoli is not supported by enough empirical evidence. How-
Italian Restructuring Verbs
323
ever, her hypothesis is interesting and it would be relevant to devote some research to formalize it into a more up-to-date framework and to test it against a broader set of data.10 In the following sections, I consider the different properties which are triggered by restructuring verbs: clitic climbing, climbing of loro, long NP-movement, tough constructions, and auxiliary selection, and I show how the argument composition lexical rule presented above can provide a uniform account of them. 4.2. Restructuring Verbs and Clitic Climbing The analysis of clitic climbing is based on the assumption that Italian clitics behave as lexically attached inflectional affixes, as argued at length in Monachesi (1995). Therefore clitics will not be considered lexical items which are located in a specific position by the rules of syntax, but featural information which is provided in the lexicon and used in morphology and phonology for the realization of the cliticized verb form.11 However, it should be noticed that Italian clitics are in complementary distribution with full complements, as exemplified below: (26)
*Valentina lo mangia il gelato. Valentina cl.(acc) eats the ice-cream 'Valentina eats the ice-cream.'
Therefore it is necessary to have a mechanism which can provide the necessary featural information and which can ensure the complementary distribution between clitics and full phrases. The following lexical rule, proposed in Abeille et al. (1998) for French and adopted in Monachesi (1995) for Italian, can serve this purpose. It will license cliticized verb forms:12 (27) Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule (CCLR)
The effect of this rule is that the complements of the verb are removed from the COMPS list one at a time and are added as members of the CUTS set.13 If an argument is realized as a clitic it cannot be realized also as a
324
Paola Monachesi
full phrase, accounting in this way for their complementary distribution. The CLTS feature will encode the agreement information relative to the clitic and will act as interface to morphology. Clitic ordering will be dealt with in morphology; in particular the rigid order of Italian clitics can be accounted for by assuming that clitics belong to different position classes. Such a notion can be expressed by means of template morphology (Simpson and Withgott, 1986). The following template should be adopted for Italian: (28) Template for the Italian clitic cluster Position:
I mi ti gli le vi
II ci
III si (ref)
IV lo la li le (ace)
V si (imp)
VI ne
Italian clitics will be thus assigned to different position classes and they will appear in the order prescribed by the template. The lexical rule presented above plays a key role in the analysis of cases of cliticization such as the one exemplified below, where the clitic has not climbed: (29) Anna vuole comprarlo. Anna wants to buy cl.(acc) 'Anna wants to buy it.' The Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule applies to words which are licensed by the lexical entry for comprare, the relevant part of which is shown below:
The effect of the rule is that the direct object will be removed from the COMPS list and it will be added as member of the CLTS set:
The necessary featural information will be available for spelling out the cliticized verb form in phonology. It should be noticed that, in those cases where the clitic has not climbed, the restructuring verb subcategorizes for
Italian Restructuring Verbs
325
a VP. Sentence (29) will receive the following representation:
On the other hand, cases of clitic climbing are accounted for by means of an interaction of the Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule and the Argument Composition Lexical Rule (presented in the previous section), which is repeated here:14 (24) Argument Composition Lexical Rule (ACLR)
Given a sentence such as (33), which exemplifies a case of clitic climbing, (33) Anna lo vuole comprare. Anna cl.(acc) wants to buy 'Anna wants to buy it.' the rule will apply to words which are described by a lexical entry, the relevant part of which is represented as:
The lexical rule will establish a relation with other words, with similar properties, but with crucially different subcategorization requirements. In fact, the complements of the lower verb will be inherited by the restructur-
326
Paola Monachesi
ing verb, creating thus a "clause union" effect. A partial description of vuole after the application of ACLR is:
The CCLR can then apply to license cliticized verbs. Its effect is that the relevant complement will be removed from the COMPS list and added as value of the CLTS set:
The following flat structure will be associated with sentence (33):15
Given a sequence of restructuring verbs, the ACLR would predict that clitics can attach to any of them. This is indeed the case: (38) a. Anna lo vuole poter comprare. Anna cl.(acc) wants to can buy b. Anna vuole poterlo comprare. Anna wants to can cl.(acc) buy c. Anna vuole poter comprarlo. Anna wants to can buy cl.(acc) 'Anna wants to be able to buy it.' In (38a), the ACLR is triggered twice, applying to the two restructuring verbs. Therefore, the finite verb vuole will inherit the complement of the lowest verb which will be realized as a clitic. The result will be a com-
Italian Restructuring Verbs
327
pletely flat structure:
As for (38b), the ACLR will be triggered once; the middle verb subcategorizes for the complement of the embedded verb which is realized as a clitic. The middle verb and the lower one form a constituent, namely a VP which is the complement of the higher one:
The last example is similar to the one presented in (29). In particular, the Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule applies to the lower verb in order to license the cliticized verb comprarlo. Italian clitics tend to cluster together; therefore if there are two clitics which originate as complements of the same verb, they must climb together:16 (41) a. *Valentina lo voleva spedirgli. Valentina cl.(acc) wanted to send cl.(dat) 'Valentina wanted to send it to him.' b. Valentina glielo voleva spedire. Valentina cl.(dat) cl.(acc) wanted to send 'Valentina wanted to send it to him.'
328
Paola Monachesi
Sentence (4la) is ungrammatical because the clitics are split. The condition that the curs set of the embedded verb must be empty, as stated in the output of the lexical rule in (24), enforces that the two clitics must climb together. In fact, the main verb can inherit the complements of the embedded verb only if the verbal complement does not constitute a cliticized verb form. This implies that the curs set of the lower verb must be empty, while this is not the case in (4la) where it contains the information related to the dative clitic. Therefore, the restructuring verb will not be able to inherit the subcategorization requirements of the verbal complement and so it cannot license the presence of the object clitic lo. Clitic climbing is triggered only by certain verbs; therefore a sentence like the following is ungrammatical because promettere does not belong to the class of restructuring verbs: (42)
*Anna lo promette di comprare. Anna cl.(acc) promises to buy 'Anna promises to buy it.'
An advantage of the argument composition approach is that it is lexically constrained; therefore the mechanism is triggered only by restructuring verbs. In the case of the sentence above, the main verb is not lexically marked as a restructuring verb; therefore it can only subcategorize for a saturated VP and not for the arguments of the verbal complement. The presence of the clitic attached to the main verb is thus not licensed, which is the desired result. 4.3. The Bisyllabic Clitic loro Restructuring verbs allow not only for the climbing of monosyllabic clitics, but also for the climbing of the bisyllabic clitic loro 'to them.' Loro, which is the third person plural dative pronoun, has very peculiar properties. On the one hand, it behaves like the other Italian clitics since it occurs in a different position from that of the related complement, it cannot be coordinated, and it cannot be modified, but on the other hand it differs from them in several respects, showing properties of lexical words.17 As already mentioned, the morphosyntactic features of the verb determine the direction of attachment for monosyllabic clitics. On the other hand, the placement of loro is insensitive to the finiteness of the verb; in fact, it always follows: (43) a. Dava loro notizie delle due figlie sposate. gave to them news of the two daughters married '(She) gave them news about the two married daughters.'
329
Italian Restructuring Verbs
b. Una valanga di letters di ammiratrici che gli chiedono an avalanche of letters of fans that cl.(dat) ask di dare loro un figlio. to give to them a child 'An avalanche of letters from fans that ask him to give them a child.' While no material can intervene between monosyllabic clitics and the verb, certain adverbs like spesso 'always' and mat 'never' can separate loro from the verb: (44) // mercato non dam mai loro le somme the market will not give never to them the amounts necessarie per effettuare il pagamento. necessary to make the payment 'The market will never give them the amount necessary to make the payment.' When an accusative and a dative monosyllabic clitic combine in a cluster, they will follow the order dative-accusative. On the other hand, when loro combines with an accusative clitic, the order will be accusative-dative: (45) Martina deve spedirla loro. Martina must send cl.(acc) to them 'Martina must send it to them.' In the previous section, I have shown that, in case of clitic climbing, monosyllabic clitics cannot be split (cf. (41)); however loro does not need to cluster with the other clitics in case of climbing. In addition, while Italian monosyllabic clitic are unstressed, loro bears word primary stress. The following table summarizes the differences between monosyllabic clitics and loro:18
(46) Monosyllabic clitics Position Adjacency
Proclitic/enclitic to the verb Cannot be separated from the verb Ordering Dative-accusative Clitic climbing Cannot be split when they climb Phonology Do not bear stress
Loro Follows the verb Certain adverbs can intervene Accusative-dative Can be split Bears stress
330
Paola Monachesi
In Monachesi (1995), I have argued that it is possible to account for the similarities and the differences between monosyllabic clitics and low, if they are assigned a different status. In fact, the former show affix like behavior while the latter exhibits word like behavior. Therefore, low can be considered an element of category XP[ + CLitic].19 If low is considered a saturated XP, it is possible to account for the fact that it cannot have complements. However, low should be distinguished from other XPS, in that it has different properties; therefore the feature [ + CLitic] will be used to this purpose.20 If low is an XP, its position will be determined by Linear Precedence constraints. The following constraint, which is independently motivated, accounts for the fact that low follows the verb:21 (47) Linear Precedence Constraint 1 (LPI) • A lexical head precedes all its complements. However, this LP constraint would not be sufficient to account for a sentence such as the following, where low precedes the direct object: (48) Una valanga di lettere di ammimtrici che gli chiedono an avalanche of letters of fans that cl.(dat) ask di dare low un figlio. to give to them a child 'An avalanche of letters from fans that ask him to give them a child.' An additional LP constraint can be proposed in order to account for the fact that low precedes all the phrasal complements: (49) Linear Precedence Constraint 2 (LP2) • A complement marked [ + CL] precedes all the other phrasal complements. Given these LP constraints, it is possible to account for the order of low in sentence (48). I refer to Monachesi (1995) for an analysis of the other properties of low discussed in this section. In what follows, I will be mainly concerned with the fact that low can undergo clitic climbing. As already mentioned, low can undergo optional clitic climbing with restructuring verbs: (50) a. Non sapevano cosa potesse low capitare. not know what could to them happen b. Non sapevano cosa potesse capitare low. not know what could happen to them 'They didn't know what could happen to them.'
Italian Restructuring Verbs
331
I will show that the interaction of the Argument Composition Lexical Rule with the LP constraints proposed above can account for the climbing of low. As already shown in the previous section, the output of the ACLR licenses restructuring verbs which subcategorize for a verbal complement and for the arguments of the verbal complement. I repeat the lexical rule here, for convenience:
The output of the lexical rule will thus license a word with the following COMPS list:
Therefore, in example (50) if argument composition has been triggered, the main verb will inherit the complements of capitare. Given the XP status of low, it will be ordered by the LP constraints; in particular, LPI will order low after the main verb. Since capitare is a v, and does not represent a phrasal complement, LP2 will not apply; therefore two orders will be allowed which are both grammatical, one as in (50a), exemplified below:
and another one where low follows the verbal complement as in (50b).22 However, it should be noted that a normal XP is not allowed to climb; it is not possible to have an XP (in this case a Giovanni) in the position
332
Paola Monachesi
occupied by loro: (53)
*Rocco non sapeua cosa potesse a Giovanni capitare. Rocco not know what can to Giovanni happen 'Rocco didn't know what could happen to Giovanni.'
In order to rule out this sentence it is necessary to revise in the following way the LP constraint (introduced in section 4.1) which says that a lexical verbal complement precedes a phrasal complement: •
A lexical verbal complement precedes a phrasal complement which is marked [ — CL].
In this way, sentence (53) will be correctly ruled out since a Giovanni is marked [ - CL]. In fact, in this case there is a verbal complement (capitare) which follows an XP [ - CL] and this is contrary to what is stated in the LP constraint. On the other hand, a sentence such as (50a) where the verbal complement follows the XP loro will be allowed. This is because loro is marked [ + CL], therefore it escapes the constraint mentioned above. As already mentioned, loro does not have to cluster with the other clitics. It is possible to have a monosyllabic clitic attached to the restructuring verb while loro follows the infinitival verb: (54) La pub fomire loro una dichiarazione del ministero. cl.(acc) can provide to them a declaration from the Ministry 'A declaration of the ministry can provide them with it.' This is crucially different from the case where two monosyllabic clitics are present; in fact in that situation clitics cannot be split. This different distribution provides further support for the word status of loro. Since loro is not an affix (unlike monosyllabic clitics), but an XP, there will be no cliticized verb form fomire loro in the lexicon. If the infinitival verb has not combined with a clitic, the curs set will be empty, argument composition will be thus possible, and the restructuring verb will inherit the complements of the infinitival verb. The following COMPS list will be associated with it:
The Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule will license the cliticized verb form la pub where the clitic realizes the object NP. On the other hand, since loro is an XP, it will be ordered according to the Linear Precedence constraints. In this particular case, it complies with LPl, which states that a
Italian Restructuring Verbs
333
complement should follow the head, accounting in this way for the fact that it does not cluster with the monosyllabic clitics. The following representation shows this:
Climbing of loro is possible only with restructuring verbs; therefore the following sentence is ungrammatical because decidere does not belong to this class: (57)
*Rocco decide loro di spedire la lettera. Rocco decides to them to send the letter 'Rocco decides to send the letter to them.'
Since the argument composition mechanism is lexically constrained, only restructuring verbs can inherit the complements of the lower verb. This is not the case of decidere; therefore the presence of loro in that position is not allowed.
4.4. Restructuring Verbs and Long Np-movement Restructuring verbs act as a class also with respect to another phenomenon, namely, long NP-movement. If the clitic si, which acts as a passivizing element, is attached to the restructuring verb, the direct object of the verb in the embedded clause is promoted to subject of the restructuring verb: (58)
Queste case si uogliono uendere a caro prezzo. these houses SI want to sell at high price 'These houses are wanted to be sold at a high price.'
In this example, queste case originates as direct object of vendere and is promoted to subject of si uogliono.
334
Paola Monachesi
The parallelism between this type of construction and the cases of clitic climbing discussed in section 4.2 is straightforward. I have already mentioned that only restructuring verbs can trigger clitic climbing, as shown in (42), repeated here: (42)
*Anna lo promette di comprare. Anna cl.(acc) promises to buy 'Anna promises to buy it.'
The same holds for long NP-movement; the object cannot be promoted to subject of the main verb if it does not belong to the restructuring class: (59)
*Le nuove case popolari si sono promesse di costruire. the new houses council SI are promised to build 'The new council houses are promised to be built.'
Furthermore, if more than one restructuring verb is present, the clitic can appear on the highest verb, as in (38a), repeated here: (38a) Anna lo vuole poter comprare. Anna cl.(acc) wants to can buy 'Anna wants to be able to buy it.' A similar situation can be found in the long NP-movement configuration if more than one restructuring verb is present: (60) Queste case si uogliono poter vendere a caro prezzo. these houses SI want can sell at high price 'These houses are wanted to be able to be sold at a high price.' In this case, queste case, which is the object of vendere, acts as subject of the main verb. Recall that when two clitics are subcategorized by the same verb, if they climb, they cannot be separated, as can be seen in (41a), repeated here: (4la)
*Valentina lo voleva spedirgli. Valentina cl.(acc) wanted to send cl.(dat) 'Valentina wanted to send it to him.'
Similarly, if long NP-movement interacts with clitic climbing, it is not possible to have a sentence where the clitic has not climbed: (61)
*Queste case si uogliono uendergli a caro prezzo. these houses SI want to sell cl.(dat) at high price 'These houses are wanted to be sold to him at a high price.'
Italian Restructuring Verbs
335
In this example, both queste case and gli are complements of the lower verb vendere', it is not possible to have a structure where the NP is preposed while the clitic stays behind. In fact, the clitic should also climb, as in the following grammatical sentence: (62) Queste case gli si vogliono vendere a cam prezzo. these houses cl.(dat) SI want to sell at high price 'These houses are wanted to be sold to him at a high price.' Given the similarities between the two constructions, it would be desirable to have an analysis that could account for both. In section 4.4.2,1 will show that the analysis in terms of argument composition which I have proposed for clitic climbing carries over naturally to the corresponding cases of long NP-movement. In particular, this is achieved through an interaction between the Argument Composition Lexical Rule and the Middle si Lexical Rule which I introduce in the following section.
4.4.1. MIDDLE si Italian clitic si has several different uses. It occurs with an impersonal interpretation, a middle interpretation, an ergative interpretation, and a reflexive-reciprocal interpretation, and it can also be an inherent reflexive clitic. I refer to Monachesi (1995) for an analysis of these different uses of si. In this section, I will only be concerned with middle si; in this case the clitic acts as a grammatical marker and the sentence receives a middle passive interpretation: (63) Gli spaghetti si mangiano spesso. the spaghetti SI eat often 'Spaghetti is often eaten.' This construction, which is fully productive, shares with passive the property that the direct object functions as a superficial subject; in particular it agrees with the verb and it can be replaced by a null subject.23 Therefore, it seems that clitic si acts as a passivizer and its function is similar to that of passive morphology. However, a difference between the middle si construction and the passive construction is that the former does not admit a by-phrase; being in this way similar to agentless passives.24 A lexical rule to account for middle si constructions (MIDSI-LR) can be proposed. This rule, which is similar to the lexical rule for passive, licenses
336
Paola Monachesi
middle verb forms:25 (64) Lexical rule for middle verb forms (MIDSI-LR)
The rule relates transitive verbs with middle passive verb forms.26 It has the effect of removing the subject from the SUBJ list and of promoting the object of the transitive verb to subject of the middle verb. Furthermore, it specifies that the subject in middle si constructions should receive nominative case and should be in the third person. The curs feature will trigger the presence of the clitic attached to the verb.27 4.4.2. THE ANALYSIS OF LONG NP-MOVEMENT In this section, I show that the interaction of the Argument Composition Lexical Rule with the Middle si Lexical Rule accounts in the desired way for those cases of long NP-movement, exemplified in (58), repeated here: (58)
Queste case si vogliono vendere a cam prezzo. these houses SI want to sell at high price 'These houses are wanted to be sold at a high price.'
The restructuring verb will be subject to the application of the ACLR; it will thus inherit the object of the complement verb:
The words licensed by the ACLR can in turn be the input of the Middle si Lexical Rule. The lexical rule will relate words with the COMPS list specified above with other ones where the object has been promoted to subject of the middle verb form:
Italian Restructuring Verbs
337
Therefore, in example (58), queste case which is the object of vendere will be inherited by uogliono and will be eventually promoted to subject of the restructuring verb. Since queste case is a full phrase, the Valence Principle, which is the principle of the grammar responsible for checking off subcategorization requirements that have been satisfied, can normally apply and remove the SUBJ slot. Sentence (58) receives the following representation:
As already mentioned, it is possible to have sentences where more than one restructuring verb is present. In this case, the object of the last verb is promoted to subject of the main verb, as in (60), repeated here: (60) Queste case si vogliono poter vendere a caro prezzo. these houses SI want can sell at high price 'These houses are wanted to be able to be sold at a high price.' The corresponding clitic climbing example, where the clitic climbs more than one clause, was accounted for by applying the Argument Composition Lexical Rule to the two restructuring verbs. Similarly, in the case of long NP-movement exemplified above, a double application of ACLR to the restructuring verbs makes queste case the object of vogliono. The application of the Middle si Lexical Rule makes the object queste case have the function of the subject. However, recall that in the clitic climbing cases, if more than one verb is present, it is also possible for the clitic to attach to the middle verb, as in
338
Paola Monachesi
(38b), repeated here: (38b) Anna vuole poterlo comprare. Anna wants to can cl.(acc) buy 'Anna wants to be able to buy it.' On the other hand, in a long NP-movement configuration, it is not possible for the NP to intervene between the two restructuring verbs, as shown here: (68)
*Si vogliono queste case poter vendere a caro prezzo. SI want these houses can sell at high price 'These houses are wanted to be able to be sold at a high price.'
In this case, the NP has the function of subject; therefore sentence (68) would be ruled out by the LP constraint that requires subjects to be ordered before the verb. Restructuring verbs subcategorize for a verbal complement whose CUTS set is empty; in this way sentences such as: (41 a)
* Valentino lo voleva spedirgli. Valentinocl.(acc) wanted to send cl.(dat) 'Valentino wanted to send it to him.'
are correctly ruled out, as shown in section 4.2. Similarly, sentences such as (61), repeated below, where there is an interaction among clitic climbing, long NP-movement, and middle si are also correctly ruled out in the same way: (61)
* Queste case si vogliono vendergli a caro prezzo. these houses SI want to sell cl.(dat) at high price 'These houses are wanted to be sold to him at a high price.'
The cliticized verb form uendergli does not match the requirements on the verbal complement since the curs set will not be empty; in fact it contains the information related to the dative clitic. Therefore, the restructuring verb cannot subcategorize for the object of the embedded verb; this implies that the appropriate conditions for the application of the Middle si Lexical rule are lacking. As a consequence, in this case no object preposing will be permitted and this is the desired result. On the other hand, sentences such as (62) are correctly allowed: (62) Queste case gli si vogliono vendere a caro prezzo. these houses cl.(dat) SI want to sell at high price These houses are wanted to be sold to him at a high price.' In this case, the output of ACLR will license restructuring verbs which subcategorize for the complements of the embedded verb. The following
Italian Restructuring Verbs
339
specification describes the COMPS list of the verb vogliono after the application of ACLR:
In addition, the Middle si Lexical Rule will relate words with the COMPS list specified above with other ones where the object has the function of the subject, while the clitic si is added as member of the CUTS set:
In addition, the Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule applies to words which are licensed by the lexical entry for vogliono, the relevant parts of which are shown above. Its effect is that the PP complement will be removed from the COMPS list and added as member of the CUTS set:
The sentence will receive the following structure:
340
Paola Monachesi
Like clitic climbing, long NP-movement is triggered only by restructuring verbs; therefore sentences such as (59) are not grammatical since promettere is not a restructuring verb: (59)
*Le nuoue case popolari si sono promesse di costruire. the new houses council SI are promised to build 'The new council houses are promised to be built.'
They are ruled out for the same reasons as sentences such as (42), repeated here: (42)
*Anna lo promette di comprare. Anna cl.(acc) promises to buy 'Anna promises to buy it.'
The reason is that verbs which do not belong to the restructuring class will not be subject to the application of the Argument Composition Lexical Rule. Since argument composition is not allowed, the application of the lexical rule for middle si construction will not be triggered and so there is no way that the object of costruire can become the subject of promettere. Sentences where a verb that does not belong to the restructuring class intervenes between sequences of restructuring verbs, such as: (73)
*Le nuove case popolari si vogliono promettere the new houses council SI want to promise di poter costruire. to be able to build 'The new council houses are wanted to promise to be able to be built.'
are ruled out for the same reasons.
4.5. Tough Constructions Restructuring verbs act as a class also with respect to tough constructions. While in Italian this construction is strictly bounded, it appears to be unbounded if a restructuring verb is present. In tough constructions, the embedded object surfaces as superficial subject, as in the following example from Rizzi (1982): (74) Questo problema e difficile da risolvere. 'This problem is difficult to solve.' It should be noticed that this construction differs from the English equivalent, since in English the direct object can be extracted from almost
Italian Restructuring Verbs
341
any level of embedding:28 (75)
That book will be impossible for you to convince the class to try to finish before Monday.
This is not the case in Italian, where the construction is strictly bounded: (76)
*Questo lavoro e facile da promettere difinire per domani. this work is easy to promise to finish by tomorrow
On the other hand, if a restructuring verb is present, it is possible for the object of an embedded infinitival verb to be promoted to subject of the copular construction: (77)
Questa canzone e facile da cominciare a cantare. this song is easy to begin to sing
The analysis proposed for restructuring verbs can provide an explanation for the possibility of (77) and the impossibility of (76). In example (77), the Argument Composition Lexical Rule will apply to cominciare, which will inherit the complement of the infinitival. Therefore, the object of cantare becomes the object of cominciare. This means that this case of tough construction is reduced to the simple case exemplified in (74). On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of (76) is due to the fact that promettere is not a restructuring verb and therefore the ACLR cannot apply; thus promettere cannot subcategorize for the object of the lower verb. Assuming an analysis of tough constructions along the lines of that proposed by Abeille et al. (1998) for French, adjectives such as facile will subcategorize for a VP with an object in its COMPS list whose index is shared with the subject of the copular construction:29
In example (77), the object of the lower infinitival will become the object of the restructuring verb by means of the argument composition mechanism. Given the specification for facile presented above, this object will be coindexed with the subject of the copular construction accounting in this way for the sentence.30
342
Paola Monachesi
4.6. Auxiliary Selection Restructuring verbs trigger auxiliary change; namely, restructuring verbs which have avere as auxiliary can change it into essere if the embedded verb requires essere as auxiliary: (79) a. Rocco ha voluto partire. Rocco has wanted to leave 'Rocco has wanted to leave.' b. Rocco e voluto partire. Rocco is wanted to leave 'Rocco has wanted to leave.' While this change of auxiliary is optional in the examples above, this is not the case when clitic climbing occurs. As shown in the following sentences, it is the auxiliary of the embedded verb that is realized: (80) a. * Rocco ci ha voluto andare. Rocco cl.(loc) has wanted to go 'Rocco has wanted to go there.' b. Rocco ci e voluto andare. Rocco cl.(loc) is wanted to go 'Rocco has wanted to go there.' More generally, it seems that it is the last verb in the verbal complex that determines which auxiliary is selected, as shown by the following examples where several restructuring verbs are present: (81) a. Rocco li ha voluti andare a cercare. Rocco cl.(acc) has wanted to go to find 'Rocco has wanted to find them.' b. Rocco ci sarebbe voluto cominciare ad andare. Rocco cl.(loc) would be wanted to begin to go 'Rocco would have wanted to begin to go there.' In (81a), volere and cercare require avere as auxiliary, while andare requires essere. In example (81b) both volere and cominciare require avere, while andare requires essere. It should be noted that if the other auxiliary is selected, the sentences above are not acceptable: (82) a. *Rocco li e voluti andare a cercare. Rocco cl.(acc) is wanted to go to find 'Rocco has wanted to find them.' b. *Rocco ci avrebbe voluto cominciare ad andare. Rocco cl.(loc) would have wanted to begin to go 'Rocco would have wanted to begin to go there.'
Italian Restructuring Verbs
343
However, the generalization mentioned above does not seem to hold if the restructuring verb requires essere as auxiliary: (83) Rocco lo e andato a cercare. Rocco cl.(acc) is gone to find 'Rocco has gone to find him.' In this case, cercare selects avere and it is the last verb in the verbal complex, but instead essere is realized. Therefore, it seems that in the presence of a verbal complex, which is reflected by the fact that clitic climbing occurs, the following generalizations hold with respect to auxiliary selection: •
If the restructuring verb selects essere then this is the auxiliary which is realized. • If the restructuring verb selects avere, then it is the auxiliary which is selected by the last verb, which is realized. If auxiliary selection is lexically encoded for each verb, through a feature AUX, it would be possible to account for the generalizations mentioned above. Restructuring verbs which have undergone argument composition and which select essere would simply realize this auxiliary. In the case they require avere, it should be feasible, with an appropriate system of features, to inherit the auxiliary requirements of the last verb in the verbal complex. However, the fact that it is possible to have optional auxiliary change also when the clitics do not climb, is unexpected: (84) a. Rocco ha voluto andarci. Rocco has wanted to go cl.(loc) 'Rocco has wanted to go there.' b. Rocco e voluto andarci. Rocco is wanted to go cl.(loc) 'Rocco has wanted to go there.' In fact, according to the generalizations expressed above, it seems possible to realize the auxiliary of the lower verb only in the presence of a verbal complex.31 An alternative possibility, which could be explored in order to account for the auxiliary selection facts mentioned above, is to take into consideration the role of unaccusativity.32 An analysis in this direction is that of Butt (1995), which proposes an LFG account of this property of restructuring verbs. She suggests a mechanism of argument fusion according to which, when verbs like andare (which require the auxiliary essere) are part of a complex predicate, their theme argument is fused with the highest embedded argument. Furthermore, she assumes that, when this process occurs, the auxiliary essere should be selected. Even though this analysis can
344
Paola Monachesi
account for the relevant data, it is somehow stipulative since it does not explain why it is the auxiliary essere that surfaces when argument fusion occurs and not avere.
5. AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
In the previous sections, I have presented an analysis of the different properties of restructuring verbs in terms of argument composition. The basic insight behind it is that the restructuring verb inherits the complements of the infinitival one and the two (or more) verbs form a verbal complex. Therefore, a clause union effect is obtained. In this section, I will discuss an alternative analysis of the properties of restructuring verbs, one which will take into consideration the nonlocal character of clitic climbing, long NP-movement, and tough constructions. As already mentioned, it could be possible to account for these phenomena in terms of nonlocal features and the Nonlocal Feature Principle, which have been proposed in Pollard and Sag (1994) to deal with Unbounded Dependency Constructions. In Monachesi (1993c), I have presented an analysis of clitic climbing which indeed relies on this mechanism.33 The treatment makes use of lexical rules to update the subcategorization requirements of the verbal head and of nonlocal features to encode the information that a clitic can appear at some point in the tree. Given a sentence such as (38a), repeated here: (38a) Anna lo vuole poter comprare. Anna cl.(acc) wants to can buy 'Anna wants to be able to buy it.' It will receive the following representation, if an analysis in terms of nonlocal features is assumed:
Italian Restructuring Verbs
345
A verb like comprare will be subject to the Lexical Rule for Object Clitics. Its effect is that one element will be removed from the COMPS list of the verb and added as value of the oc set. This value will percolate by means of the Nonlocal Feature Principle, the percolation will stop once a TO-BIND|OC feature is found. The TO-BIND|OC feature will be present on the cliticized verb form. If the values of the TO-BIND|OC feature and the INHER|OC feature are identical, the nonlocal dependency is bound off according to the Nonlocal Feature Principle: it will be subtracted from the set of nonlocal feature values that are passed up to the mother.34 However, this type of account faces certain problems which are avoided in an analysis in terms of argument composition. An obvious problem is that the analysis in terms of nonlocal features overgenerates, allowing clitic climbing also with verbs that do not trigger it. Therefore, a sentence such as the following, where the main verb is not a restructuring verb, will be accepted, unless specific conditions are added: (42) *Anna lo promette di comprare. Anna cl.(acc) promises to buy 'Anna promises to buy it.' The approach does not account in a straightforward way for the fact that only restructuring verbs can trigger clitic climbing. This is because Unbounded Dependency Constructions are subject to different locality constraints than clitic climbing constructions. In order to rule out sentences such as (42), it is necessary to add specific constraints on the path of the oc feature. The percolation of the feature must be stopped if there is a verb that does not trigger clitic climbing and must be allowed if there is a verb that triggers it. In Monachesi (1993c) this was achieved by imposing the condition that verbs that do not allow clitic climbing should select for a complement with INHER|OC { }. While this could be a possible way to obtain the correct result, it also suggests that this approach does not naturally capture the fact that clitic climbing is triggered only by a specific class of verbs since specific conditions need to be imposed to obtain the right result.35 Furthermore, the constraints need to be imposed both on verbs that do not trigger clitic climbing and on those that trigger it; this is clearly not very economical. In addition, some generalizations are missed if the analysis is extended to account for long NP-movement: (58) Queste case si vogliono vendere a cam prezzo. these houses SI want to sell at high price These houses are wanted to be sold at a high price.'
346
Paola Monachesi
As already mentioned in section 4.4, long NP-movement and clitic climbing are subject to similar constraints; it is thus desirable to have an analysis that could account for both constructions. Therefore, sentence (58) should be analyzed by means of an interaction between the mechanism based on nonlocal features and the rule proposed in section 4.4.1 for middle si constructions. However, there are some problems connected to this. Recall that MIDSI-LR relates two sets of words with different subcategorization requirements; its effect is to promote the direct object of a transitive verb to the subject of the middle verb form. However, given the nonlocal approach presented above, the information about the object of the embedded transitive verb, namely, queste case, would be encoded in the INKER |oc of the verb volere. One could postulate another rule for middle si constructions which relates restructuring verbs; the rule should operate on information encoded in a nonlocal feature and change the grammatical function of the element present in the INHER|OC set, making it a subject. Therefore, there would be two lexical rules in order to account for middle si constructions. One would relate restructuring verbs and would operate on material encoded in the nonlocal feature while MIDSI-LR would relate verbs that do not belong to this class, as in (63), repeated here: (63) Gli spaghetti si mangiano spesso. the spaghetti SI eat often 'Spaghetti is often eaten.' In this case, the rule would effect the subcategorization requirements of the verb; thus, the same phenomenon would be analyzed in two different ways, which is not a desirable result. A similar problem would occur in the analysis of tough constructions: (77) Questa canzone e facile da cominciare a cantare. this song is easy to begin to sing Given an analysis of tough constructions such as that sketched in section 4.5, the adjective facile subcategorizes for a VP with an object in its COMPS list whose index is shared with the subject of the copular construction. However, if nonlocal features are used to account for the properties of restructuring verbs, cominciare will encode the information relative to the object of cantare, not in the COMPS list, but in the INHER|OC set. Therefore, an alternative entry which is associated with the adjective facile should be foreseen to account for the interaction of restructuring verbs with tough constructions. In this entry, there should be a coindexation between the subject of the copular construction and the element contained in the INHER|OC set.
Italian Restructuring Verbs
347
It seems therefore that an approach in terms of nonlocal features does not account for clitic climbing in an adequate way since it does not naturally capture the fact that only a specific class of verbs triggers it. Furthermore, it does not account for long NP-movement and for the interaction of restructuring verbs and tough constructions in an elegant way. On the other hand, an analysis of restructuring verbs which is based on the mechanism of argument composition provides a more adequate treatment since it can naturally account for the intermediate distance character of the constructions involved.36
6. RESTRUCTURING VERBS IN SALENTINO The second part of this paper will be concerned with dialectal variation. I will take into account restructuring verbs in Salentino, a southern Italian dialect discussed in Calabrese (1993). I will focus on one property of restructuring verbs, namely, clitic climbing. In particular, I will consider the behavior of the verb ulire 'want' in that variety of Salentino spoken in the provinces of Brindisi and Taranto. This verb has the peculiar property of triggering clitic climbing out of a finite clause. I will show that, within HPSG, the parameterization of linguistic variation occurs in the lexicon and, in particular, that a lexical approach to clitic climbing allows for a proper treatment of the variation represented by this dialect.
6.1. Clitic Climbing in Salentino As already discussed, clitic climbing with restructuring verbs is optional in Standard Italian, but this is not the case in certain southern Italian dialects, such as Salentino, which is spoken in certain parts of Puglia. In particular, in this section I will be concerned with that variant of the dialect spoken in the northern part of the province of Lecce. In this dialect, restructuring verbs trigger obligatory clitic climbing, as can be seen from the following example:37 (86) a. *Lu pottsu kkattare krai. cl.(acc) canlsgbuyinf tomorrow b. *Pottsu kkattarlu krai. canlsg buyinj cl.(acc) tomorrow 'I can buy it tomorrow.'
348
Paola Monachesi
These data can receive an account under the argument composition analysis proposed for restructuring verbs in Standard Italian. The same mechanism will account for clitic climbing in both cases. Verbs that trigger clitic climbing will thus subcategorize for a verbal complement and for the arguments of the latter, as shown in the following lexical entry for pottsu:38
Therefore, while in Standard Italian, it is necessary to formulate a lexical rule in order to account for the optionality of clitic climbing, in Salentino a lexical entry would suffice. Each clitic climbing trigger verb will be described by a lexical entry similar to the one presented above. I assume the Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule, which I have adopted for Standard Italian and which licenses cliticized verb forms to be operative in this dialect as well. The restriction on curs in the lexical entry (87), namely, curs must be empty, accounts for obligatory climbing. A sentence such as (86b) where the clitic is attached to the lower verb is ruled out. In fact, in that case the CLTS set will contain the information related to the clitic; therefore it will not be empty and will thus not fulfill the condition imposed by the lexical entry above. It should be mentioned that there is variation with respect to which elements belong to the class of restructuring verbs in Standard Italian and in Salentino. For example, while a verb like volere 'want' is a restructuring verb in Standard Italian, this is not the case in Salentino (at least in the variant spoken in the province of Lecce). However, a crucial difference between Standard Italian and Salentino is the fact that in Italian volere allows for the presence of an infinitival complement if there is coreference between the subject of the matrix clause and that of the embedded clause: (88)
Carlo uuole venire domani. Carl wants to come tomorrow 'Carl wants to come tomorrow.'
Italian Restructuring Verbs
349
This is not the case in Salentino, where a verb like volere cannot subcategorize for an infinitival complement: (89)
*Lu Karlu ole inire krai. the Carl wants 3sg to comeinf tomorrow 'Carl wants to come tomorrow.'
More generally, in Salentino there is a class of verbs, namely, verbs of ordering, desiring, warning, etc. (of which ulire 'want' is a member), that cannot be followed by an infinitival complement. They select instead a finite clause which is introduced by the element ku, as can be seen in sentence (90):39 (90) Lu Karlu ole ku bbene krai. the Carl wants35g KU comes inrf3ig tomorrow 'Carl wants him to come tomorrow.' In particular, Calabrese (1993) suggests that ku introduces the complement of verbs which express an attitude toward, or an attempt to bring about, an event which is yet to come. The status of the element ku, which introduces finite clauses after this particular class of verbs, is rather controversial since it exhibits both properties of inflectional affixes and of complementizers.40 The idiosyncratic behavior of ku can be easily understood if diachronic data is taken into consideration; in fact ku was originally a complementizer. As Calabrese notices, ku derives from Latin quod, which was a complementizer: (91) Luvat me quod studia vigent. pleases me that studies flourish 'I am pleased that studies are flourishing.' However, as will become clear from the following discussion, synchronically, ku is becoming an inflectional affix connected to tense morphology. Yet, the process is not completed; therefore it still maintains some of its original properties of complementizers. 6.1.1. ON THE STATUS OF THE ELEMENT ku Evidence in favor of the status of ku as inflectional affix comes from the following properties: • It attaches to the verb and only clitics can separate it from the verb. • It constrains tense morphology. • It cannot have wide scope over coordination.
350
Paola Monachesi
The first property is exemplified as follows: (92) a. *Oyyu ku lu Maryu bbene krai. want lig KU the Mario comesind, 3sg tomorrow 'I want Mario to come tomorrow.' b. Oyyu ku nnu le kkatti. want lig KU not cl.(acc) buyind>2sg 'I want you not to buy them.' Sentence (92a) shows that no phrasal complement can separate ku from the verb; only clitics may intervene, as in (92b).41 The element ku constrains tense morphology; in fact, when it is present, there is a violation of the morphological agreement of tenses between the main clause and the embedded clause, which is generally assumed to be obeyed in Standard Italian. For example, the presence of a past tense in the main clause does not imply a past tense in the clause introduced by ku; in fact, only the present and the perfect may be used in this case, as shown in the following example: (93) la ulutu la Maria ku bbae/ia ™*cond.past, 1sg wanted the Maria KU go P r e s . / p e r f , 'I wanted Maria to have gone there before.'
3sg
f/iuta ddai. there
More generally, ku seems to introduce clauses characterized by a nondeictic tense; in fact, as noticed by Calabrese (1993), the tense of the embedded clause must be bound by the tense of the matrix clause in order to get a time reference.42 Additional evidence in favor of the affixal status of ku comes from coordination; in fact, in this case, the element must be repeated in front of each conjunct, as the following example from Melillo (1975) shows: (94)
Tokka ku ffacimu festa e kku ne prisamu. must KU make^ip, party and KU cl. enjoyind, 1pl 'We should have a party and enjoy it.'
However, ku exhibits also additional properties which could argue in favor of its status of complementizer: •
It is in complementary distribution with the complementizer ka.
•
It is incompatible with a wh-expression.
•
It precedes negation.
Italian Restructuring Verbs
351
The first property is shown by the following example, which demonstrates that ku and the complementizer ka cannot cooccur in the same sentence: (95)
*Voleva ka la Maria ku bbene. wanted 3ig that the Mary KU comesind >3sg 'He wanted that Mary would come.'
This seems to suggest that they are in complementary distribution because they are both complementizers. The position of negation also argues in favor of the complementizer status of ku, as can be seen from example (92b), repeated here: (92b) Oyyu ku nnu le kkatti. want ug KUnot cl.(acc)buyjW>2jg 'I want you not to buy them.' It should be noticed that in Standard Italian negation follows the complementizer che: (96) Martina dice che non vena alia festa. Martina says that not will come to the party 'Martina says that she will not come to the party.' Furthermore, ku is incompatible with a wh-expression: (97) a. *Me sta ddumannu nt/e ku add3u fare. cl. aux. wonder1sg what KU have.nrf ls_ to do lagind,1sgb. Me sta ddumannu ntje add3u fare. cl. aux. wonder what have to do 'I am wondering what to do.' In this respect it shares the same behavior as the complementizer ka: (98)
*Me sta ddumannu nt je ka add3u fare. cl. aux. wonder1sg what that have lcff to do 'I am wondering what to do.' 13
6
13
5
The following table summarizes the properties of ku:
(99) Inflectional affix properties Attaches to the verb; only clitics can intervene Constrains tense morphology No wide scope over coordination
Complementizer properties Complementary distribution with the complementizer ka Incompatible with wh-expression Precedes negation
352
Paola Monachesi
Therefore, it seems that ku has an intermediate status between that of an inflectional affix and of a complementizer. 6.2. An HPSG Analysis In this section, I propose an analysis of the data presented above. In particular, I will be concerned with the status of the element ku and how it should be represented within HPSG. Given that it shares both properties of inflectional affixes and of complementizers, I can see three possible ways of accounting for it: 1. ku is considered an inflectional affix; therefore the analysis proposed for object clitics in Standard Italian can be extended to account for it. 2. ku is considered a complementizer; therefore it will have the status of a marker and it attaches to a VP. 3. ku is a complementizer, thus a marker, but it attaches to a v. If the first possibility is considered, it would be easy to account for the fact that ku attaches to the verb and nothing but clitics can intervene. However, it is not evident how to account in a principled way for the fact that ku is in complementary distribution with the complementizer ka. On the other hand, if ku is considered a VP marker it would be straightforward to account for the complementary distribution with ka, but one would predict that it is possible for adverbs to intervene between ku and the verb, while this does not seem to be the case.43 The third option, which views ku as a complementizer, thus a marker which attaches to v, seems thus the most appropriate way to account for the hybrid status of this element. In fact, it incorporates its complementizer properties and would also account for the fact that ku is a verbal affix. According to Pollard and Sag (1994), complementizers are considered markers.** In fact, they mark the constituent in which they occur; they are distinguished by the attribute MARKING which they structure share with the mother node. Markers can select the phrase with which they combine through the feature SPEC. Therefore, the following will be the entry for ku:
In addition, verbs of order, desire, etc. should subcategorize for a finite sentence introduced by ku. However, it should be noted that, in Salentino,
Italian Restructuring Verbs
353
finite clauses introduced by ku (or ka) cannot be considered control structures, as argued in Calabrese (1993). He provides examples such as the following, where he shows that the empty category in the subject position of these clauses doesn't need to be bound by an antecedent in the matrix clause: (101) Lu Maryu ole ku ej bbete bbona. the Mario wants3sg KU is3sg good3F5g 'Mario wants her to be good.' Calabrese considers it a free pronominal that can be related to a referent in the extralinguistic context or to an antecedent in the discourse. Furthermore, he argues that sentences such as the following cannot be cases of Exceptional Case Marking: (102) Oyyu lu Maryu ku le kkatta krai. want lig the Mario KU cl.(acc) buysind, 3sg tomorrow 'I want Mario to buy them tomorrow.' In fact, the subject preceding ku must be assigned nominative case, as shown in the following example where the nominative pronoun idda 'she' occurs: (103) Oyyu idda ku bbene krai. want ljg she (nom) KU comes/nrf 35g tomorrow 'I want her to come tomorrow.' Therefore, the lexical entries for verbs of order, desire, etc. should contain the following description:
A sentence such as (102) will thus receive the following structure:
354
Paola Monachesi
It should be mentioned that the percolation of the MARKING value from the marker up to the s is ensured by the Marking Principle from Pollard and Sag (1994): (106)
MARKING Principle In a headed phrase, the MARKING value is token identical with that of the marker daughter if any, and with that of the head daughter otherwise.
Therefore, the resulting sentence will have ku as value for MARKING and will thus satisfy the condition in the lexical entry for ulire in (104). As already mentioned, no overt subject can intervene between ku and the verb: (92a) *Oyyu ku lu Maryu bbene krai. want 1sp KU the Mario comesind, tomorrow lig i r i U j3sg JAg 'I want Mario to come tomorrow.' This fact can be easily accounted for under the analysis proposed. Since ku selects for a v and not for an s, it will not be possible to have the subject in that position. In addition, under this treatment no adverbs are expected to occur between ku and the verb, which is the correct result. It should be recalled that ku is in complementary distribution with the complementizer ka; therefore a sentence such as (95), repeated here, where ku which is introduced by the verb ulire and ka cooccur, is not grammatical: (95) *Ulia ka la Maria ku bbene. wanted3ig that the Mary KU comesind, 3sg 'He wanted that Mary would come.' The complementizer ka will be also considered a marker which has the following lexical entry:
Since ka subcategorizes for an s with the value for MARKING equal to unmarked, the sentence above would be ruled out because it will have ku
Italian Restructuring Verbs
355
as value. The following representation exemplifies this:
Therefore, examples such as (95) would be ruled out in the same way as an English sentence such as the following: (109)
*/ think that that John left.
In a similar way, it is possible to rule out sentences such as the following, where ku and ka cooccur, but where the main verb subcategorizes for an embedded clause introduced by ka: (110)
*Sperava ka la Maria ku bbene. hoped3sg that the Mary KU comesind, 3sg 'He hoped that Mary would come.'
As discussed in Monachesi (1995) it would be more problematic to rule out sentences such as the one above if ku is considered an inflectional affix. 6.3. Clitic Climbing and Finite Clauses Unlike Standard Italian, clitic climbing does not occur with a verb such as ulire 'want'; in fact a sentence such as the following would be ungrammatical in Salentino of Lecce: (111)
*Le ole ku kkatta. cl.(acc) wants3igKU buyind, 3sg 'He wants to buy them.'
The ungrammaticality of this sentence could in some sense be expected since generally clitic climbing occurs out of a nonfinite clause, but in this case there is a finite one. However, as will become clear in the next section, this cannot be the reason. Instead, I suggest that clitic climbing cannot occur in (111), because there is no obligatory control. In fact, as I mentioned in the previous section, in Salentino, finite clauses introduced by ku cannot be considered control structures. I show in the next section that the reason for not having clitic climbing in sentence (111) cannot be related to the presence of a finite verb and that indeed obligatory control is a crucial condition for the occurrence of clitic climbing.
356
Paola Monachesi
6.3.1. SALENTINO OF BRINDISI AND TARANTO Calabrese (1993) mentions in a footnote data from a variety of Salentino which is spoken in the provinces of Brindisi and Taranto. This variety of Salentino is similar in all relevant respects to the variety previously discussed, but it has an additional peculiar property. In fact, if the matrix verb is ulire 'want' and if there is coreference between the subject of the matrix clause and the subject of the embedded clause, the element ku can be omitted: (112) a. Voggyu ku kkattu nu milune. wantl5g KU buy,^
Italian Restructuring Verbs
357
Therefore, clitic climbing with the verb ulire is optional in this variety. On the other hand, if ku is present, clitic climbing is not allowed (115b): (115) a.
Voggyu want lsg 'I want b. *Lu cl.(acc) 'I want
ku lu kkattu. KU cl.(acc) buy,. nd>ljg to buy it.' uoggyu ku kkattu. wantj^ KU buyind>lxg to buy it.'
The data presented above seem to suggest that, in this variety of Salentino, clitic climbing is allowed with the verb ulire when there is obligatory control. The obligatory control configuration is reflected in the omission of the element ku. The lexical analysis of clitic climbing in terms of argument composition proposed for Standard Italian can be adopted to account for the data presented above. The fact that, in this variant of the dialect, ulire 'want' is the only verb in its class to trigger clitic climbing is accounted for by the fact that argument composition is lexically constrained. Parametric variation is thus handled in the lexicon. Therefore, if there is coreference between the subject of ulire and that of the embedded verb, the lexical entry should contain the following description:
The verb will subcategorize for a finite verb and its complements; this operation of argument composition is indicated by the tag 2. The coreference between the subjects is represented by the presence of the tag CD. It should be noted that the conditions imposed in the lexical entry above are similar to those in the output of the Argument Composition Lexical Rule proposed for Standard Italian.
358
Paola Monachesi
In this way, it is possible to account for a sentence such as (114a) where clitic climbing occurs: (114a) Lu uoggyu kkattu. cl.(acc) want^buy^^ 'I want to buy it.' It will receive the following structure:
This representation is similar to that provided for cases of clitic climbing in Standard Italian; the only crucial difference with respect to Standard Italian is that in this case two finite verbs will form a verbal complex.47 On the other hand, clitic climbing is blocked if ku is present: (115b) *Lu uogguy ku kkattu. cl.(acc) want1sg KU buy^^ 'I want to buy it.' Sentences such as (115b) are ruled out by the condition MARKING unmarked specified in (116). In other words, argument composition, thus clitic climbing, is possible only if the verbal complement has not combined with the marker ku. Clitic climbing with the verb ulire is optional; in fact clitics can also attach to the embedded verb, both if ku is present and if it is omitted. Therefore, there will also be a lexical entry where ulire subcategorizes for a saturated VP:
Italian Restructuring Verbs
359
In this case, it is required that the subject of the embedded verb and that of the main verb should be referential. It should be noted that the conditions in the lexical entry above are similar to those imposed on words licensed by the input of the Argument Composition Lexical Rule proposed for Standard Italian. The entry will account for those cases where the clitic has not climbed:48 (114b) Voggyu lu kkattu. want ljg cl.(acc) buylW>1,g 'I want to buy it.' (115a) Voggyu ku lu kkattu. want 1sg KU cl.(acc) buy/B
As already mentioned, the marker ku can be optionally omitted only in a control configuration; therefore a sentence such as the following would not be grammatical since there the element ku is not present and there is no subject coreference: (120)
*Maryu uoli vueni Karlu. Mario wants,.. comesind, Carl ind ,.„ JAg 3sg 'Mario wants Carl to come.'
This sentence would be ruled out because it does not satisfy the conditions in either of the entries proposed for ulire; in fact it is not possible to license the presence of the subject. If there is no coreference between the subjects, the element ku must be present, as shown in the following example: (121) Maryu voli ku vveni Mario wants 3sg KU comesind 'Mario wants Carl to come.'
3sg
Karlu. Carl
360
Paola Monachesi
This suggests that ulire subcategorizes also for a sentence introduced by ku, as in the other variety of Salentino taken into consideration. Therefore, also in this dialect, the verb ulire like other verbs of order, desire, etc. will be associated with the following lexical entry, proposed in section 6.2:
The entry requires that the verb subcategorizes for a finite s introduced by the complementizer ku and it will account correctly for sentence (121).
7. CONCLUSION In this article, I have proposed an analysis of Italian restructuring verbs in terms of argument composition. It is based on the idea that the complements of the infinitival verb are raised to become complements of the restructuring verb. I have shown that this mechanism allows for a uniform account of the different properties exhibited by these verbs: clitic climbing, long NP-movement, tough construction, and auxiliary selection. In particular, I have shown that the analysis in terms of argument composition interacts in the appropriate way with the analysis of cliticization, providing an adequate account of the different aspects of clitic climbing. The differences and similarities of monosyllabic clitics and of loro with respect to climbing are derived by assuming that they have a different status. Monosyllabic clitics show affixlike behavior, while loro exhibits wordlike behavior. Furthermore, I have provided an account for the impossibility of having split clitics in Italian, a fact which has never received a clear treatment under traditional generative approaches such as that of Rizzi (1982). I have also shown that the analysis of restructuring verbs in terms of argument composition interacts with the treatment proposed for middle si constructions, allowing for an elegant account of long NP-movement. In particular, the analysis can capture in a natural way the parallelism attested between clitic climbing and long NP-movement. Furthermore, the analysis proposed can provide an explanation for the fact that the Italian tough construction, which is strictly bounded, appears to be unbounded in the presence of restructuring verbs. I have also shown that the argument composition approach is superior to an approach in terms of nonlocal features. In the former, no special
Italian Restructuring Verbs
361
constraints need to be postulated in order to account for the fact that only restructuring verbs exhibit the properties mentioned above. An advantage of the approach proposed is that it can be easily extended to account for dialectal variation. In the second part of the article, I have considered restructuring verbs in Salentino, focussing mainly on clitic climbing. I have shown that the argument composition mechanism can be employed to account for the peculiar fact that in this dialect, the verb ulire 'want' allows for clitic climbing out of a finite clause.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is based on my dissertation and thus the acknowledgments made there hold here as well. In addition, I would like to thank Tilman Hohle and Detmar Meurers for illuminating discussions about the use of lexical rules. Thanks also to Erhard Hinrichs, Tilman Hohle, Adam Przepiorkowski, Frank Richter, and two anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments they made on an earlier draft of this paper.
NOTES In general there is no difference in meaning between the two sentences. However, see Napoli (1981), for a potential counterexample. 2 This is the generalization which has been assumed in traditional grammars and in previous studies of this clitic. However, a corpus analysis has revealed that loro can optionally precede the verb in certain contexts, namely, within a relative clause and in the presence of an adnominal past participle. See Monachesi (1995) for further details. 3 While the second example is considered ungrammatical in Rizzi (1982), it seems acceptable to me. On the other hand, it is not clear if RNR can be considered a reliable test for constituency. See Abbott (1976) for English. 4 A relevant question in relation to the flat structure is whether it makes the right predictions with respect to the scope of adjuncts. Given that the treatment of adjuncts in HPSG is still a topic of much debate and that a clear theory is lacking, it is difficult to provide an adequate answer. 5 Examples are from Moore (1991). 6 Compare Abeille and Godard (1994) and Emonds (1996), who also propose a flat structure for French auxiliary verbs. 7 Lexical rules have been used quite extensively in the analysis of several phenomena in the HPSG literature; however, their formalization is still a matter of debate. There are at least two possible ways in which the functionality of lexical
362
Paola Monachesi
rules could be formalized: either as meta-descriptions relating lexical entries (Calcagno, 1995) (MLR) or as descriptions relating word objects (Meurers, 1995) (DLR). Hohle (1995) has shown that the metalevel formalization leads to wrong results if the Complement Extraction Lexical Rule (CELR) (Pollard and Sag, 1994) is used to extract complements from verbs which have undergone argument composition. Similar problems would arise if the Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule (CCLR), adopted in this work, applies to verbs which have undergone argument composition. However, Meurers (1995) has shown that under the DLR approach it is possible to avoid the unwanted results. It is this interpretation of lexical rules that is assumed in this paper. In addition, it should be noted that since in the DLR approach word objects are related, issues of instantiation do not play a role. Therefore restructuring verbs should be marked by a special feature which should be mentioned also in the left-hand side of the ACLR. In this way, it is possible to ensure that the rule applies only to restructuring verbs. However, an alternative worth exploring is that of replacing the lexical rule by an underspecified lexical entry for each verb belonging to the restructuring class, while the relevant generalizations are expressed by means of lexical principles. 9 1 disagree with Burzio's judgment; in fact, I would consider example (25b) grammatical. 10 See Fontana (1996) for a more recent attempt to derive the class of trigger verbs semantically. 11 This implies that there will be no entries related to the clitics in the lexicon. 1 A previous version of this rule which was adopted in Monachesi (1993a,b) was proposed in Miller and Sag (1993). 13 It should be mentioned that the notation [U clitic in (27) stands for a SYNSEM of sort clitic. This information plays a role in the account of past participle agreement which is triggered by object clitics and in the case of binding theory. 14 Given the lexical rule, two structures will be created if the subcategorization slots are filled by complements instead of clitics: a flat one and one where the lower verb and its complements form a constituent. However, data concerning long NP-movement, tough constructions, and auxiliary selection show that they are both necessary also when clitics are not present and that it is not possible to restrict the application of the rule so that only arguments which are realized as clitics are raised. Skytte et al. (1991) notice that there are regional differences in the use of the two structures. In the dialects of central Italy and Toscana, both structures are present, while in the Northern Italian dialects only the hierarchical structure is attested and in the Southern Italian dialects, only the flat one. 15 It should be mentioned that the argument composition approach and the flat structure which I have assumed in the case of clitic climbing are independent of each other. Therefore, it would be possible to maintain an analysis of clitic climbing in terms of argument composition even if new evidence were to reveal that the flat structure is not the correct one. 16 This is not always the case in other Romance languages. For example, in French causative constructions, a reflexive clitic remains attached to the infinitival
Italian Restructuring Verbs
363
verb, while object clitics, which correspond to complements of the infinitival, attach to the causative verb. Kayne (1991) mentions that split clitics are attested also in Franco-Provengal. In constructions where there is an auxiliary and a past participle, it is possible to have one clitic attached to the former and another one attached to the latter. 17 The exceptional behavior of low could be related to its phonological shape. In fact, loro is bisyllabic while all the other Italian clitics are monosyllabic. See Wanner (1987) and Nespor (1994) for a similar assumption. See Monachesi (1995) for a detailed comparison between monosyllabic clitics and loro. 19 Cardinaletti (1991) points out that loro can be marginally doubled by a monosyllabic clitic, behaving in this respect as a maximal projection. The feature could be employed also in the analysis of similar elements, which have been attested in other languages. See Cardinaletti and Starke (1996) for a typological study. 21 An additional LP constraint should be specified to order the subject before a phrasal head. This treatment produces spurious ambiguity since a sentence such as (50b) will be also licensed by the input of the ACLR. 23 See Manzini (1983) for a more detailed discussion of the subject status of the element in preverbal position. 24 Cinque (1988) notes that in more rhetorical styles of Italian it is possible to find a by-phrase cooccurring with si, and Zubizarreta (1987) notices that there are languages in which passive cannot take an agentive by-phrase. 25 See also Grimshaw (1982) for an analysis in terms of lexical rules of the French se moyen within the LFG framework. The rule applies to finite verbs and generally it cannot apply to infinitivals. However, it can apply to infinitivals in raising constructions, as in the following example: (i) Possono trovarsi nuovi articoli. can find SI new articles 'It is possible to find new articles.' Therefore, additional conditions need to be specified in order to avoid the application of the rule in the general cases where an infinitival is present. 2/ As for the semantics of middle verb forms, it should be mentioned that the superficial subject is linked to the object argument position, while the subject argument position is filled by an external agent which, however, does not surface syntactically. 28 However, Grover (1995) argues against the idea that English tough constructions should be considered nonlocal dependencies. 29 The unsaturated VP complement should be licensed by an appropriate ID schema. 30 An alternative approach which could also account for Italian tough constructions is presented in Grover (1995) for English. She argues against a nonlocal
364
Paola Monachesi
treatment of English tough constructions and she proposes an account where the object is promoted by a lexical rule and becomes the subject of the infinitival verb. In this way, the infinitival complement will have two elements in the SUBJ list, the most oblique of which (the promoted object) will be structure-shared with the subject of the adjective. However, while I think that an analysis in terms of nonlocal features is completely unmotivated for Italian and that an approach in terms of object promotion is more appropriate, I think that the option of having more elements in a SUBJ list is rather controversial. However, it should be noticed that the grammatical status of this example is questionable (cf. also Rizzi, 1982, footnote 26). In fact, it is given as acceptable in Skytte et al. (1991) and as ungrammatical in Calabrese (1988). Since there is quite a lot of dialectal variation associated with auxiliary selection, the contrasting judgments could be attributed to it. It should be noted that other attempts to account for the auxiliary selection of restructuring verbs, such as Rizzi (1982) and Burzio (1986), have not been able to provide an explanation for the example (84b). 32 However, Centineo (1986) challenges the Unaccusative Hypothesis Burzio (1986) and argues that auxiliary selection in Italian is determined by the lexical semantic properties of the verb and not by their configurational properties. 33 See Miller (1992) for a similar analysis of clitic climbing triggered by French auxiliary and causative verbs within a GPSG/HPSG framework. 34 In Monachesi (1993c) I have assumed a hierarchical structure in case of clitic climbing, as in the representation sketched here. However, this position has been abandoned in subsequent work, given the motivations presented in section 3. 35 The analysis of clitic climbing presented in Miller (1992) in terms of FOOT features runs into a similar problem. Therefore also in his account specific constraints are added on the FOOT feature specifications to obtain the correct result. 36 A reviewer suggests that there could be a lexical alternative to the structural percolation of nonlocal features, which has been employed in the analysis discussed here. In such an account, the flow of information would be regulated by the restructuring verb. I think that this could be an interesting possibility worth exploring; however, it will imply a revision of the way nonlocal features are introduced and propagated, which is not immediate. I believe that an analysis along these lines is that proposed by Kraak (1998) in the framework of multimodal categorial grammar. 37 A11 the examples of Salentino discussed here are from Calabrese (1993). 38 This entry is similar to the one proposed for auxiliaries in Standard Italian which also trigger obligatory clitic climbing. I refer to Monachesi (1993b, 1995) for an analysis of auxiliaries in Italian. 39 The finite complement can either have an indicative or a subjunctive verb. 40 It should be mentioned that an equivalent of ku can be found in other languages, such as Greek (na), Albanian (te), and Rumanian (sa) (cf. Terzi, 1992). 41 Sentence (92a) also shows that ku behaves differently from complementizers, since no overt subject can intervene between it and the verb. Instead, the subject
Italian Restructuring Verbs
365
must precede ku or it can be postverbal. Therefore, ku behaves differently from the element ka, whose status is uncontroversially that of a complementizer. This element introduces finite clauses which are embedded under a verb of saying or believing, and in this case the subject can intervene between ka and the verb, as expected with a complementizer. The characteristics of ka are therefore similar to those of Italian che and of English that. 42 The behavior of ku is different from that of the complementizer ka; if the latter is present, there is always morphological agreement of tenses. 43 I refer to Monachesi (1995) for a more detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the two solutions sketched here. 44 However, see Sag (1997) for a different analysis, where the complementizer is viewed as a head. 45 It should be noted that elements equivalent to ku across Balkan languages cannot be omitted, suggesting that ku might indeed be different from them. Terzi also mentions that the Greek equivalent of ku, the particle na, is always obligatory while its antecedent in earlier stages ina which was uncontroversially a complementizer could be omitted. 46 The peculiarity of this variation of Salentino with respect to clitic climbing is also recorded in AIS 1086 (Jaberg and Jud, 1940), where the variants la voggyu ttakku and voyu lla ttakku 'I want to attach it' are mentioned. 47 At first sight, one might think that there could be a relation between this construction and serial verb constructions. As Veenstra (1996) points out, serial verb constructions are characterized by the fact that they contain two verbs which have: • only one expressed subject; • one specification for tense/aspect; • only one possible negator; • no intervening coordinating conjunction; • no intervening subordinating conjunction; • no intervening pause possible. The Salentino construction discussed in section 6.3.1, complies with the properties just mentioned; however, there is a crucial difference with respect to the way complements are ordered. In fact, serial verb construction have typically the format: (i)
N?! Y! NP2 V2 (XP3)
while this is not the case for the Salentino construction. Another crucial difference is that in Salentino the verb ulire subcategorizes for a verbal complement, while this is not the case in serial verb constructions. 48 It should be noted that since in the entry for ulire presented in (118) the mechanism of argument composition is not triggered, a sentence such as (115b) would not be allowed by this entry. This is the correct result.
366
Paola Monachesi
REFERENCES Abbott, B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 639-642. Abeille, A., and D. Godard (1994). The complementation of French auxiliaries. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 157-173. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Abeille, A., D. Godard, P. Miller, and I. Sag (1998). French bounded dependencies. In S. Balari and L. Dini (eds.), HPSG in Romance. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Aissen, J., and D. Perlmutter (1983). Clause reduction in Spanish. In D. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar, 360-403. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. Reidel, Dordrecht. Butt, M. (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Dissertation in Linguistics, CSLI, Stanford, CA. Calabrese, A. (1988). I pronomi clitici. In L. Renzi (ed.), Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, Vol. 1, 549-592. II Mulino, Bologna. Calabrese, A. (1993). The sentential complementation of Salentino: A study of a language without infinitival clauses. In A. Belletti (ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, 28-98. Rosenberg & Sellier, Torino. Calcagno, M. (1995). Interpreting lexical rules. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar, Barcelona. Cardinaletti, A. (1991). On pronoun movement: The Italian dative low. Probus 3(2), 127-153. Cardinaletti, A., and M. Starke (1996). The typology of structural deficiency. On the three grammatical classes. In H. Van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Language Typology, Vol. 8. de Gruyter, Berlin. Centineo, G. (1986). A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian. In Davis Working Papers in Linguistics, 1-35. University of California, Davis. Cinque, G. (1988). On Si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 521-581. Emonds, J. (1996). How clitics license null phrases: A theory of the lexical interface. In H. Van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Language Typology, Vol. 8. de Gruyter, Berlin. Fontana, J. (1996). On the Sources of Variation in Clause Reduction Phenomena. Talk given at the ESSLLI workshop on Surface-Based Syntax and Romance Languages, Prague. Grimshaw, J. (1982). On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 87-148. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Grover, C. (1995). Rethinking some empty categories: Missing objects and parasitic gaps in HPSG. Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex.
Italian Restructuring Verbs
367
Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1990). Subcategorization and VP structure in German. In Hughes, Shaun and Salmons (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Germanic Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Hohle, T. (1995). The Complement Extraction Lexical Rule and Variable Argument Raising. Talk given at the HPSG workshop, Tubingen. Jaberg, K., and J. Jud (1940). Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Sudschweiz. Ringier, Zofingen. Kayne, R. (1991). Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4), 647-686. Kraak, E. (1998). A deductive account of French object clitics. In E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Complex Predicates in Nonderiuational Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 30, 271-312. Academic Press, San Diego. Manzini, M. R. (1983). Restructuring and Reanalysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Melillo, M. (1975). Le Strutture Verbali dei Dialetti di Puglia. Universita degli studi di Bari. Meurers, D. (1995). Towards a semantics for lexical rules as used in HPSG. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar, Barcelona. Miller, P. (1992). Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Garland, New York. Miller, P., and I. Sag (1993). French Clitic Movement without Clitics or Movement. Paper presented at the LSA annual meeting, Los Angeles. Miller, P., and I. Sag (1995). French Clitic Movement without Clitics or Movement. Unpublished manuscript, Lille and Stanford. (French version in Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique) Monachesi, P. (1993a). Restructuring verbs in Italian HPSG grammar. In K. Beals, G. Cooke, D. Kathman, S. Kita, K. McCullough, and D. Testen (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, 281-295. Monachesi, P. (1993b). Object clitics and clitic climbing in Italian HPSG grammar. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Utrecht, 437-442. Monachesi, P. (1993c). The use of nonlocal features in the analysis of Italian object clitics and clitic climbing. In W. Sijtsma and O. Zweekhorst (eds.), Proceedings of the Third CLIN Meeting, Tilburg, 71-82. Monachesi, P. (1995). A Grammar of Italian Clitics. ITK Dissertation Series 1995-3 and TILDIL Dissertation Series 1995-3, Tilburg University. Moore, J. (1991). Reduced Constructions in Spanish. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California. Moortgat, M. (1988). Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Napoli, D. (1981). Semantic interpretation vs. lexical governance: Clitic climbing in Italian. Language 57(4), 841-887.
368
Paola Monachesi
Nespor, M. (1994). The phonology of Clitic Groups. In L. Hellan and H. Van Riemsdijk (eds.), Clitic Doubling and Clitic Group. EUROTYP working papers, 67-90. Nishida, C. (1991). A non-transformational analysis of clitic climbing in Spanish. In A. Halpern (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford, 395-409. Pollard, C., and I. Sag (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Fundamentals, Vol. 1 CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C., and I, Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, and CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Przepiorkowski, A., and A. Kupsc (1997). Negative concord in Polish. Unpublished manuscript, Tubingen and Warsaw. Rentier, G. (1994). A lexicalist approach to Dutch cross serial dependencies. In K. Beals, J. Denton, R. Knippen, L. Melnar, H. Suzuki, and E. Zeinfeld (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, 376-390. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Sag, I. (1997). English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33(2), 431-484. Simpson, J., and M. Withgott (1986). Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In H. Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 19, 149-174. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Skytte, G., G. Salvi, and M. R. Manzini (1991). Frasi subordinate all' infinito. In L. Renzi, and G. Salvi (eds.), Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, Vol. 2, 483-569. II Mulino, Bologna. Terzi, A. (1992). PRO in Finite Clauses. A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages. Ph.D. Thesis, New York. Terzi, A. (1995). Two Types of Clitic Climbing out of Finite Clauses. Unpublished manuscript, CUNY and Rutgers University, van Noord, G., and G. Bouma (1994). Adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. In Proceedings of COLING 94, Kyoto, 250-256. Veenstra, T. (1996). Serial Verbs in Saramaccan: Predication and Creole Genesis. HIL dissertation, Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Wanner, D. (1987). The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns, de Gruyter, Berlin. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1987). Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
CAUSATIVES AND THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE GERT WEBELHUTH Department of Linguistics University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina
1. INTRODUCTION1
This article concerns itself with the question of the "unithood" of causatives in a number of senses of this term. Inspection of causatives from several languages shows that (i) causative predicates can be expressed either synthetically (i.e., as single morphological words) or analytically (i.e., through a combination of words that do not form a morphological constituent together) and (ii) causative predicates can behave as if all of their grammatical arguments form a single clause with respect to binding, passivization, etc. or as if they form two different clauses, and they can show mixed behavior; i.e., some causatives behave in some respects as if a single clause is present whereas in other respects a biclausal analysis is indicated. As will be shown, the data available in the linguistic literature indicate that all the logically possible combinations of surface expressions and clausality behaviors that were discussed in the previous paragraph are instantiated in some natural language. The table in (1) gives an overview of the languages that data will be cited from in support of these typological Syntax and Semantics, Volume 30 Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax
369
Copyright © 1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 0092-4563/98 $25.00
370
Gert Webelhuth
generalizations: (1)
Monoclausal Biclausal Mixed
Analytic German I German II Italian
Synthetic Malayalam Chi-Mwi:ni Turkish
The picture in (1) is of great theoretical relevance for the design of syntactic theories. First of all, the existence of mixed causatives raises the obvious issue of how a syntactic theory can simultaneously ascribe monoclausal and biclausal properties to a construction. One way in which this challenge has been met traditionally is through the postulation of various strata of syntactic analysis that make it possible for a construction to destructively alter its properties from one syntactic level of representation to the next. For both conceptual and computational reasons such nonmonotonic operations are problematic, however, and ideally we would like to do without them. From the point of view of the theoretical linguist the data that (1) sums up is also important in that each of the three causative types can be projected both from synthetically and analytically expressed predicates. As Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998) demonstrate in detail, causatives in this regard are representative of many other notions expressed by natural language predicates, e.g., tense, aspect, passive, middles, and modalities. The regularity with which the small class of notions including the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph recurs in the world's languages suggests that they have a privileged status in the grammars of individual languages. Even if one knows nothing else about some natural language, one does not run a big risk by predicting that it will have predicates whose meaning involves the notions of tense-aspect and that it is likely to express various modalities and causation. The same degree of predictability does not attach to the way the predicates carrying these notions will be expressed, however. Thus, even though a language may express tense, aspect, or causatives, if one knows nothing else about the typological properties of the language, one will not be able to predict whether these notions are expressed with the use of affixes or by adding auxiliaries to a main verb. This asymmetry between a set of notions expressed by predicates that recur regularly in the world's languages and our inability to predict whether the relevant predicate will be expressed synthetically or analytically in any given language leads us to the following considerations. Linguistic theory would miss an important generalization if it failed to
Causatives and Argument Structure
371
capture the fact that certain notions are likely to be expressed in natural languages. Moreover, as we shall see below, while the surface expression of a predicate expressing a certain notion is not in general predictable, other grammatical properties of the clauses containing such a predicate may be predictable! Again, to be explanatorily adequate, linguistic theory should capture these generalizations. Finally, linguistic theory should explain why it is that causatives in particular and predicate notions in general can be freely expressed either in synthetic or in analytic surface forms. The issues raised in the last paragraph thus lead to the following practical design problems to be solved by the grammar writer: (2) • How can the predicate notions which recur with systematic frequency in the world's languages be given a privileged status that explains their systematic recurrence with the same or similar properties in language after language? • How can grammars be designed so that languages can make use of the same predicate notion but are free to express the notion either synthetically or analytically in a language-particular fashion (or following the typological tendencies of the language)? The remainder of this paper is an attempt to find plausible answers to these two questions in the domain of causatives. The solution that will be sketched for this circumscribed grammatical domain is not dependent on any properties of causatives, however. It can therefore be seen as one special application of a general theory of predicate formation that deals with the issues in (2). Such a general theory is worked out in formal detail in Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998), to which the reader is referred. The present article will limit its scope to causatives and will also not attempt a full formalization of the theory. Instead, we will work out an informal sketch of the theoretical commitments that are necessary in a satisfactory approach to causatives in light of the data in (1) and the theoretical considerations in (2).
2. THE DATA FROM CAUSATIVES 2.1. Terminology and Pretheoretical Diagnostics for Clausality It will be best to agree on some terminological conventions and some pretheoretical diagnostics for monoclausality vs biclausality before we approach different causative constructions and compare them. Since we
372
Gert Webelhuth
will primarily be dealing with causatives formed from transitive verbs, the resulting causative predicate will contain information about up to three semantic arguments. We will base our terminology on causatives that embed a predicate with a clearly distinguished active human agent argument and a passive nonhuman patient argument: (3)
Sue Human eats the
fishNon.human.
In a causative construction such as (4) we have an additional argument: (4) MaryCauser causes SueCausee to eat fishPatient. We will refer to Mary as "the causer," to Sue as "the causee," and to fish as the "patient," "the patient of the lower verb," or "the lower patient." In constructions where the lower predicate's arguments are not clearly distinct in terms of agentivity or humanness, we will apply the terms "causee" and "patient" in analogy with the behavior of similarly expressed predicates that draw the distinctions clearly. As an added typographic signal, we will underline the causee and use boldface roman for the patient in all relevant examples. We will apply three pretheoretical diagnostics of monoclausality and four diagnostics of biclausality in the creation of clausality profiles for different causative constructions.2 The first diagnostic of monoclausality is that the causative predicate has the grammatical-functional profile of a generic monoclausal three-place predicate that denotes a single state of affairs. The prototype of such a verb is give, which in many languages governs three distinct functions: a subject, a direct object, and an indirect object-oblique. If causative predicates behave like typical verbs give in this respect, this diagnostic will identify them as monoclausal. Second, there are many empirical reasons for postulating that some semantic and/or grammatical arguments of a predicate are in some sense more closely related to the predicate than others.3 This can be reflected in phrase-structural differences; e.g., the verb in English forms a phrase with its objects which the subject argument is external to, making the subject argument less closely related to the verb than its objects. It can also be reflected in terms of idiom formation in that patient arguments typically form idioms more easily with verbs than agent arguments, etc. As a whole, these criteria converge on an ordering that establishes agentive subjects as being less closely bound to the predicate than patient objects. From this point of view, the three arguments of causativized predicates can be ranked as follows: the patient is the innermost argument, the causee is less closely bound to the embedded predicate, since it is an agent, and the
Causatives and Argument Structure
373
causer is least closely bound, since it is not even an argument of the embedded predicate. The two arguments farthest away from each other in this hierarchy are the causer (an argument of CAUSE) and the lower patient (the innermost argument of the embedded predicate). We will use the possibilities of binding-theoretic interaction between these two arguments as another diagnostic. Since anaphoric binding is typically constrained to applying to arguments of the same clause in the world's languages, if in a causative construction the two arguments of the causative that are most distant from each other can enter into an anaphoric binding relationship, then we will take this to be a symptom of monoclausality. (5) illustrates this case: (5)
tciause-l NPCauser-i V NPCausee (V) NP patient .i]
Assuming the final NP to be an anaphor that is bound by the causer across the intervening causee, this is tentative evidence that all three NPS appear in one and the same clause. Finally, we invoke the theoretical assumption that passive is universally defined as the demotion of an underlying subject. In the unmarked case, the underlying direct object of the same predicate becomes the surface subject of the passive predicate. In other words, the unmarked passivization construction creates single clauses. Consider a causative construction such as (5) in this light: if the causative in (5) can be passivized with the consequence that the causer is demoted from a subject to an oblique and the patient is promoted to the new surface subject, then this is evidence that all three arguments of the original causative predicate appear in one clause. These, then, are our three diagnostics for monoclausality. We will sum them up in a table once we have discussed the tests for biclausality. If each of these diagnostics returns a positive result for a causative construction, we take that to be strong evidence that the construction is monoclausal. The first of the four diagnostics of biclausality acts as a counterpart of the first diagnostic for monoclausality: if we find doubled grammatical functions in the causative predicate, e.g., two direct objects or two indirect objects, then we will take that to be an indication that two clauses are present, under the assumption that each clause contains only a single instantiation of each nonoblique grammatical function. According to this diagnostic, the English construction in (6) would be biclausal, because both the causee and the patient can be shown to behave like direct objects: (6) / made her read it. (6) is an instance of the two-predicate raising-to-object construction, in which the subject of the underlying predicate read is structure-shared
374
Gert Webelhuth
("has been raised") with the object function of the causative predicate. While the two clauses overlap because of this functional identification, they have not been collapsed into a single clause and the lower "caused" clause contains a subject distinct from the subject of the "cause" clause. The presence of such a biclausal structure with a discrete subject in the lower clause may also be indicated by binding-theoretic facts. Thus, if in a structure similar to (5) the causer is unable to bind the patient argument, then the reason is possibly that the structure needs to be parsed into two clauses as in (7) rather than just one as in (5): '')
Lciause-l
NP
Causer-i
V
l-Clause-2
NP
Causee-k 'V'
NP
Patient-*i/k-U
Since binding is typically clause-bound, the structure in (7) is one way of naturally accounting for the inability of the causer to bind the patient. We thus again get the picture typical of subject-to-object raising sentences: (8)
*The woman i made Kim call herself
The English causative construction thus behaves biclausally both with respect to the doubling of grammatical functions and the binding theory. The third diagnostic for biclausaliry is the counterpart of the third diagnostic for monoclausality. Recall that we argued that passivization is clause-bound and hence that if the patient as the innermost argument of the causative predicate can become the surface subject of the passivized causative, this suggests that the causative predicate projects all its semantic arguments into a single clause. Conversely, if that patient argument cannot become the surface subject of the passivized causative, then one reason for this may be that there really are two clauses and what is being passivized is the upper clause. Since the patient does not bear a grammatical function in the upper clause, it is barred from promoting to the subject of the passivized causative. We can illustrate this feature again with the English subject-to-object raising causative construction. Compare the following three examples: (9)
Mary made S«eCausee criticize HelenPatienl.
(10)
SweCausee was made to criticize Helen Patient .
(11)
*HelenPatient was made SueCausee to criticize.
Passivization of the active causative (9) yields the result in (10) rather than (11): the causee and not the patient of the embedded predicate becomes the surface subject of the passivized causative. Postulating a biclausal structure for (9) immediately accounts for this paradigm: since
Causatives and Argument Structure
375
the causee but not the patient bears the grammatical function of direct object in the upper clause, it will become promoted to the subject function if the upper clause is passivized. Finding a paradigm of this kind in a causative construction thus is another diagnostic for biclausality. The fourth and final diagnostic for biclausality comes from binding theory once again. It is well known that subjects make very good binders cross-linguistically. Consequently, there are languages in which subjects are the only grammatical function that can antecede anaphors in constructions where there is no doubt about how many clauses are present or what grammatical functions the arguments present in the sentence bear. Dalrymple (1993:11) cites the Marathi reflexive swataah as an example of an anaphor requiring a subject as its antecedent. Assume, then, that we have a language with an anaphor that must be anteceded by a subject and we lexicalize the patient argument of a causative construction with that anaphor. If only the causer can antecede the anaphor, then we will assume that only one clause is present and that the causer is the subject of that clause. On the other hand, if either only the causee or both the causee and the causer can antecede the anaphor in the innermost argument position, then we have reason to believe that the causee is a subject. Since the causer is always a subject of active causative constructions, the construction must thus have two subjects. Given that we are assuming that nonoblique grammatical functions cannot be doubled within clauses, this state of affairs indicates the presence of two clauses with the causer the subject of the higher clause and the causee the subject of the lower one. From here on, we will frequently abbreviate "monoclausal property" as "1CLP" and biclausal property as "2CLP." The reader should be aware that sometimes not all diagnostics can be applied to a given construction for independent reasons and that we also sometimes lack relevant data. It should also be kept in mind that the diagnostics are just pieces of circumstantial evidence meant to help us develop an analysis. The more diagnostics converge on the same result, the more confident we can be that a construction is really monoclausal or biclausal. If only a single diagnostic gives us a positive result in one direction, then we should use this piece of evidence only very cautiously. The following three sections will be concerned with purely monoclausal, purely biclausal, and mixed causatives, respectively. It will be shown that the functional property of clausality is independent of surface realization, since for each of the three clausality types we can find languages that express that type through a synthetic predicate and other languages that express the type analytically.
376
Gert Webelhuth
2.2. Purely Monoclausal Causatives This section has two subsections that each deal with a purely monoclausal causative construction. They differ in that in German the predicate of this construction is expressed through an auxiliary-main verb combination whereas Malayalam uses a single synthetic word form. 2.2.1. GERMAN I Compare the regular noncausative transitive sentence (12) with the causativized counterpart in (13) which is one of the two German causative constructions: (12) Ellen hat den Jungen gekammt. Ellen has the boy combed 'Ellen combed the boy.' (13) Ellen liefl den Jungen von seiner Schwester kammen. Ellen caused the boy by Els sister comb 'Ellen had the boy combed by his sister.' According to our terminological convention, Ellen is the causer, von seiner Schwester is the causee, and den Jungen is the lower patient. (13) has the grammatical-functional profile of a three-place verb: the mapping from semantic roles to grammatical functions is as in (14): (!4)
sucauser OBLCausee OBJ Patient (= 1CLP)
The absence of any doubled grammatical function in a causativized transitive is a monoclausal property. In all other respects, the construction in (13) behaves like a single clause as well. We illustrate this with anaphoric binding. As Reis (1976) has shown, the German anaphor sich must be anteceded by the subject of the minimal clause containing it:4 (15)
*Maria glaubt [daft JEllen *die Frau Maria believes that Ellen-su the woman-Do sich gezeigt hat]. herself-io shown has 'Maria believes that Ellen showed the woman to herself.'
(16)
*Maria glaubt [daft J Ellen *der Frau Maria believes that Ellen-su the woman-IO sich gezeigt hat]. himself-vo shown has 'Maria believes that Ellen showed the woman herself.'
Causatives and Argument Structure
377
(15) and (16) both contain the ditransitive predicate zeigen 'to show.' In the first example, we have lexicalized the indirect object of this predicate with the reflexive sich. Of the three underlined functions in (15), only the subject of the embedded clause can be understood as binding sich, whereas the direct object of the lower clause as well as the subject of the main clause are not possible antecedents. In (16) we reflexivized the direct object of the predicate of the lower clause and as before, only the subject of its own clause can antecede the anaphor. Assuming that the anaphor sich obeys Reis' Generalization, this data is immediately accounted for: the two objects in (15) and (16) cannot antecede the reflexive because the reflexive must be bound by a subject and the main clause subject cannot do so because it is not contained in the same minimal clause that contains the reflexive. Armed with this generalization about sich, we can now return to the causative construction and see what happens when we lexicalize the lower patient with sich: (17) Elleni liei sich i/*k von ihrer Schwesterk kdmmen. Ellen caused herself by her sister comb 'Ellen caused her sister to comb herself.' (18)
Ellent heft von ihrer Schwesterk sich;/*k kdmmen. Ellen caused by her sister herself comb 'Ellen caused her sister to comb herself.'
Independently of the word order we choose for the causee and the lower patient, only the causer can antecede sich. According to our diagnostics, this is double evidence for a monoclausal analysis of this construction: since the causer Ellen can bind sich, these two expressions must occur in the same clause if sich behaves in causatives as it does elsewhere. Second, the fact that the causee her sister cannot antecede sich suggests that the causee is not a subject because otherwise it would have to be the subject of the minimal sentence containing sich in (17)-(18). The binding facts thus unambiguously favor a monoclausal analysis of this German causative construction. In sum, the causative construction we have called German I passes two tests for monoclausality and none for biclausality. We therefore take it to be an instance of a purely monoclausal causative construction. As all the examples show, this construction is formed by a combination of the auxiliary lassen and the bare infinitive of the main verb. Moreover, the auxiliary and the main verb can be separated from each other in phrase structure, e.g., wnen the auxiliary that serves as the categorial head of the predicate must appear in the second position of main clauses, as in (17).5
378
Gert Webelhuth
2.2.2. MALAYALAM6
Malayalam has a purely monoclausal causative construction as well. Interestingly, in this language the causative predicate is expressed by one single morphological word. In (19) we provide an example of a simple transitive sentence: (19) kutti aanaye nulli child-NOM elephant-Ace pinched The child pinched an elephant.' As in the German construction just discussed, the causative predicate formed from the predicate of (19) governs three distinct grammatical functions, namely, a subject, a direct object, and an oblique. This is a monoclausal property: (20) amma kuttiyekkonte aanaye nulliccu mother child-iNST elephant-Ace pinch-CAUSE-PAST 'Mother made the child pinch the elephant.' Second, the causative predicate can be passivized and under passivization the lower patient rather than the causee becomes the subject of the passive predicate: (21) ammayaal aana nullikkappettu mother-iNST elephant-NOM pinch-CAUSE-PASS-PAST 'The elephant was caused by mother to be pinched.' Since the lower patient, the innermost argument of the embedded predicate, can become the subject of the passive clause and we assume in general that passive is clause-bound, this is further evidence for the monoclausal nature of the Malayalam causative construction. Finally, like German, Malayalam has an anaphor that is subjectoriented. In the sentence below, the possessive reflexive can only take the subject Johnny as its antecedent and cannot be bound by the direct object Mary: (22) jooni meehye swantam wiittil weccs umma weccu Johnny Mary self s house-LOC at kiss put 'Johnny kissed Mary at Johnny's/*Mary's house.' The binding facts in (23) fall out from this generalization and the assumption that the causative consists of only one clause with only one
379
Causatives and Argument Structure
subject which expresses the causer mother: (23) amma kuttiyekkonte aanaye mother child-iNST elephant-Ace nulliccu
swantam wiittil self s house
weccd at
pinch-CAUSE-PAST
'Mother made the child pinch the elephant at mother's/*child's/*elephant's house.' The causee and the lower patient cannot antecede the possessive reflexive because the single clause cannot have more than one subject and the subject function is already taken by the causer. The Malayalam causative construction thus displays only monoclausal properties. Functional-semantically it behaves like German I, but there is one crucial difference between the two constructions: in Malayalam the causative predicate is expressed by one single morphologically integrated word form whereas German uses a combination of two phrase-structurally independent word forms.
2.3. Purely Biclausal Causatives Now we will encounter causative constructions that behave in all respects as if they contain two clauses. They show the typical properties of raising-to-object constructions which identify the object of the higher clause with the subject of the clause immediately embedded under the higher clause. We will refer to the higher clause as the "cause clause" and the lower one as the "caused clause." An analytic version of this construction is presented in section 2.3.1 and a synthetic version in section 2.3.2.
2.3.1. GERMAN II German has a second causative construction apart from the one we saw in section 2.2.1. Like the first construction, however, the present one expresses its predicate with the auxiliary lassen and the bare infinitive of the main verb. Note the difference between (24) and the earlier example (13), both of which are causatives based on the predicate of the simple noncausative sentence (12): (24) Ellen liefi den Vater den Jungen kdmmen. Ellen made the father the boy comb 'Ellen made the father comb the boy.'
380
Gert Webelhuth
Unlike (13), (24) expresses both the causee and the lower patient as noun phrases [(13) expressed the causee as an oblique], which is a first hint that these two elements bear the same grammatical function, albeit in different clauses. Second, both NFS in (24) are accusative, the case typical of direct objects in German, and they show the same word order behavior relative to other constituents. There is thus reason to assume that this causative construction contains two direct objects, one that expresses the causee and one for the lower object. Assuming that each clause can have at most one direct object, this is evidence of the presence of two clauses in this construction which are related by the functional-semantic analog of subject-to-object raising. If the conclusion in the previous paragraph is correct, then the subjectbound anaphor sich should behave differently in the construction we are calling German II than in the previously discussed construction German I. For, if the overt direct object of the cause clause really is identified with the subject of the caused clause, then the subject of the minimal clause containing sich in the lower object position should be the causee rather than the causer. In other words, the construction should behave like (8) with the lower object anteceded by the surface direct object but not the surface subject which functionally is "one clause too far away" from the anaphor. This prediction is borne out: (25) Hansi Heft den Jungenk sichk/* kammen. Hans made the boy himself comb 'Hans made the boy comb himself.' Compare (25) with (17) and (18), where the binding facts were just the opposite. 2.3.2. CHI-MWI:NI7 The Chi-Mwi:ni causative is interesting because functional-semantically it behaves exactly like the purely biclausal construction we just saw but differs from it in that the predicate of the construction is expressed on the surface as one single morphological word consisting of a verb stem, a causative affix, and various other pieces of morphology. As we understand it, the components of this word are not separable under any syntactic or phrase-structural conditions. As a first indication of biclausality, note that the causee and the lower patient are both expressed as simple noun phrases in the causative (26): (26) Mwa:limu 0-wa-andik-ish-iz-e wa\na xati. teacher SP-OP-write-CAUSE-T/A children letter 'The teacher made the children write a letter.'
381
Causatives and Argument Structure
This is compatible with (26) being an instance of subject-to-object raising in which the causee is expressed as the direct object of the cause clause and the lower patient as the direct object of the caused clause.8 Further evidence for this structure is provided by passivization. As the difference between (27) and (28) indicates, only the causee but not the lower patient can become the subject when the predicate in (26) is passivized: (27)
(28)
Wa:na wa-dndik-ish-iz-a: xati na mwailimu. children SP-write-CAUSE-PASS-T / A letter by teacher 'The children were made to write a letter by the teacher.' *Xati a-dndik-ish-iz-a wa:na na mwailimu. letter write children by teacher 'The letter was made to be written by the children by the teacher.'
(26)-(28) are parallel to the English sentences (9)-(11) whose grammatically judgments we had assumed to follow from the presence of two clauses with semantic identity between the object of the higher and the subject of the lower clause. Passivization thus provides powerful evidence for the biclausality of the Chi-Mwi:ni causative construction. The binding theory, finally, falls into place as well. In both (29) and (30) we have lexicalized the lower patient with an anaphor that reportedly follows the same binding principle as the German reflexive sich: it must be bound by the subject of the minimal clause containing it. In a sentence such as (29), only the surface direct object causee which acts as the subject of the minimal clause containing the anaphor can be interpreted as anteceding the reflexive. The surface subject is "one clause too far away": (29)
M/j [ni-m-big-ish-iz-e] mwa'.na^ I-SUBJ SP-OP-hit-CAUSE-T/A child-OBJ T made the child hit himself.'
ru:hu-y-e*i/k. himself
If we replace the third person anaphor in (29) with a first person anaphor to make it featurally compatible only with the first person subject of the cause clause and incompatible with the third person direct object of the cause clause, then the sentence becomes ungrammatical: (30)
M/J [ni-m-big-ish-iz-e] Alik ru:hu-y-a*i/*k. PSUBJ SP-op-hit-CAUSE-T/A Ah-OBj myself 'I made Ali hit myself."
382
Gert Webelhuth
The reason is obvious: mi bears the right features to bind the anaphor but is not close enough to bind it structurally; AH, on the other hand, is structurally in the right position to bind the anaphor [cf. (29)] but conflicts with it featurally. In sum, like the second German causative construction, the Chi-Mwi:ni causative construction discussed in the present section behaves biclausally in every respect. Interestingly, however, the predicate that projects these two clauses is expressed by one single morphological word.
2.4. Mixed Causatives The causative constructions whose data are introduced in this section are very interesting as well. Both constructions differ from the previous four in that they simultaneously evince monoclausal and biclausal properties. But like the previous two clausality types, this mixed type can be expressed analytically or synthetically.
2.4.1. ITALIAN9
The Italian causative, like Romance causatives in general, is very complex and consists of a number of different constructions with different properties. The reader should be aware that our goal here is not to provide anything like a comprehensive analysis of these constructions. Our interest is in showing that there exist some causative constructions which display a mixture of monoclausal and biclausal behaviors, i.e., that this construction type exists and has to be recognized as one type of complex predicate. The Italian causative under discussion behaves biclausally with respect to the binding theory but monoclausally in all other respects. Thus, note that the functional profile of the causative sentence in (31) is similar to that of a sentence headed by a ditransitive verb of the give type. The causer is expressed as a subject, the causee as an indirect object marked by the preposition a, and the lower patient is expressed as a direct object: (31) Fara riparare la macchina a Giovanni. he will make repair the car to Giovanni 'He will make Giovanni repair the car.' The absence of functional doubling is a monoclausal property. Moreover, the patient direct object becomes the subject when the predicate of
Causatives and Argument Structure
383
(31) is passivized: (32) La macchina sara fatta riparare a Giovanni. the car will be made repair to Giovanni. 'The car will be made to be repaired by Giovanni.' In this respect, the Italian construction patterns with the purely monoclausal causative construction of Malayalam [cf. (21)] and differently than the purely biclausal causative of Chi-Mwi:ni [cf. (27)-(28)]. Despite this evidence from relational uniqueness and passivization, however, there is evidence for the biclausality of the construction from binding theory. The argument is based on the anaphor se stess- (which alters its shape depending on the inflectional features of its antecedent). This element occurs in the following noncausative sentence that we use as a control. (33) is of the subject-to-object raising type and the inability of the subject of the main clause to bind the anaphor suggests that this anaphor must find an antecedent within the minimal clause containing it: (33)
* Maria i considerava [Giovanni orgoglioso di se stessai]. Maria considered Giovanni proud of herself 'Maria considered Giovanni proud of herself.'
Lexicalizing the lower patient position of our Italian causative with the inflectionally correct form of se stess- shows that the causative construction behaves like the biclausal raising-to-object construction (33) with respect to the binding of this anaphor: (34)
*Con le minacce fecero accusare se stessii a Giovanni. with threats(they i) made accuse themselves to Giovanni 'With threats they made Giovanni accuse themselves.'
(35)
Con le minacce fecero accusare se stesso i a Giovannii. with threats- (they) made accuse himself to Giovanni 'With threats they made Giovanni accuse himself.'
In both sentences, the subject causer is left unexpressed and signaled through the finite morphology on the causative auxiliary. (34) shows that this understood subject is unable to antecede se stessi, and (35) shows that, once the anaphor is put into the singular, it can be anteceded by the causer which is expressed as an indirect object on the surface. In sum, Italian has a causative construction that behaves monoclausally with respect to non-binding theoretic properties but biclausally with respect to at least one binding theoretic property.10
384
Gert Webelhuth
Finally, note that this Italian mixed causative is expressed analytically by the combination of the auxiliary fare and the bare infinitive of the main verb. 2.4.2. TURKISH 11 This brings us to the final empirical option we will illustrate here: a mixed causative construction whose predicate is expressed by a single synthetic word form. This case is found in Turkish, which has a causative construction that behaves very similarly to the Italian construction we just examined. (36) provides a simple noncausative transitive sentence of this language: (36) Hasan bauul-u acti. Hasan suitcase-Ace opened 'Hasan opened the suitcase.' The causativized version of (36) in (37) expresses the causee as an indirect object marked by dative case and the lower patient by a direct object marked by accusative case. The presence of three distinct grammatical functions in this causative is a monoclausal property: (37) Mehmet Hasani bavul-u ac-tir-di. Mehmet Hasan-DAT suitcase-ACC open-CAUSE-PAST 'Mehmet had Hasan open the suitcase.' In further support of a monoclausal analysis, the lower patient can become the surface subject when (37) is passivized, but the causee cannot: (38)
Bavul Mehmet tarafindan Hasan-a aq-tir-il-di. suitcase Mehmet by Hasan-DAT open-CAUSE-PASS-PAST 'The suitcase was caused by Mehmet to be opened by Hasan.'
(39)
* Hasan Mehmet tarafindan bavul-u aq-tir-il-di. Hasan Mehmet by suitcase-Ace open-CAUSE-PASS-PAST 'Hasan was caused by Mehmet to open the suitcase.'
As in Italian, some binding-theoretic facts spoil a purely monoclausal picture of the Turkish causative. For some speakers the first person anaphor kendim cannot be bound by an indirect object: (40)
*Hasan banai kendim-ii anlatti. Hasan me-DAT myself-ACC explained 'Hasan explained me to myself.'
385
Causatives and Argument Structure
Yet, apparently even those speakers who find (40) ungrammatical accept both (41) and (42): (41) Beni Hasan-a kendim-ii I Hasan-DAT myself-ACC 'I made Hasan wash me.' (42)
yika-t-ti-m. wash-CAUSE-PAST-lSG
Banai kendim-ii anlat-tir-di. me-DAT myself-ACC explain-CAUSE-PAST 'He made me explain myself.'
(41) is expected under a monoclausal analysis. If there is only one clause, then in the active the causer should be its subject and as a subject should be able to antecede the anaphor in the direct object position of the same clause. (42) presents a problem, however. Here the causee in the grammatical function of an indirect object binds the lower patient, even for speakers who do not allow indirect objects to bind that same anaphor in noncausative environments such as (40). One obvious way of explaining the difference between (40) and (42) is that in (40) the dative phrase is a pure indirect object whereas in (42) it is an indirect object semantically identified with a subject of a lower clause. If kendim can take any subject as its antecedent, then both the surface subject and the indirect object causee in the causative construction qualify as possible binders. For this explanation to succeed, the construction has to be biclausal, however, in contradiction to the arguments for monoclausality from surface grammatical functions and passivization presented earlier. The Turkish causative thus displays a mixed clausality profile, like the Italian causative discussed in the previous subsection. Unlike that construction, however, the Turkish causative expresses its predicate as one single morphological word.
3. SOME ANALYTIC PREREQUISITES We will begin our analysis of causatives by more specifically spelling out what properties a theory of causative predicates should have in order to best capture the empirical generalizations presented in the previous section. At the beginning of the article we already made one decision: the theory should not have to take recourse to destructive structural operations such as transformations. In essence this precludes all grammatical
386
Gert Webelhuth
function changing operations in the syntactic component through the application of tree modifying operations (i.e., "Move Alpha."). We might take this prohibition against tree-modifying function changes to be a symptom of a more general conceptual prohibition against all grammatical function changes in the syntax. As I will show next, this opens the door (i) to a very clean and conceptually attractive division of labor between the syntactic and the lexical components of natural language grammars and (ii) to an empirical approach to the six types of causatives discussed earlier that captures more generalizations than any other approach to the syntax of causatives that I am aware of.
3.1. A Strong Form of Lexicalism Preventing the syntax from effecting any kind of grammatical function changing operations means to identify the lexicon as the sole source of functional alternations. The correctness of this kind of grammar design is strongly suggested by the fact that predicates are typically associated with morphological categories in the lexicon and grammatical function changes are typically registered through morphological changes of predicates or through the addition of other morphological units (such as auxiliaries) to the base predicate. The previous section presented examples of both kinds: Malayalam adds an affix to a noncausative predicate to causativize it and German adds a causative auxiliary for the same purpose.12 We are led then to postulate two principles that give the lexicon clearly defined analytical privileges over the syntactic component. The first principle strongly ties the morphological component to the lexicon and separates the morphology from the syntactic component: (43) The Principle of Morphological Lexicalism No syntactic process creates morphological words, and no syntactic constraint mentions the features of the morphological bases of any morphologically derived syntactic expressions. (43) privileges the lexicon over the syntax in two ways. First, it makes it possible only for the lexicon but not for the syntactic component to form new morphological words. This restriction has been one of the pillars of grammatical frameworks such as LFG, GPSG, and HPSG. In GB, word formation in the syntax has traditionally been possible (see, for example, Baker, 1988), but with the advent of the Minimalist Program words have to enter the syntax fully formed in this theory as well, in accordance with the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis.
Causatives and Argument Structure
387
The second consequence of the Principle of Morphological Lexicalism is that morphological derivations are opaque to the well-formedness constraints on syntactic representations. In other words, only the output of a morphological derivation is relevant for syntactic well-formedness. Without such a constraint, the syntax could "look" into a morphological expression at an arbitrary depth and impose constraints that are not found anywhere in the world's languages, e.g., "a sentence containing a denominal verb is grammatical if that verb at any level of morphological derivation is derived from an adjective whose most oblique argument is a subject at some other level of morphological derivation." Like Baker's theory of "incorporation," this approach makes far too much morphological information available to the syntactic component to be typologically adequate.13 The second leading principle of lexicalism I propose limits all predicate formation to the lexicon: (44) The Principle of Functional Lexicalism No syntactic schema admits a predicate whose argument structure is unspecified or underspecified. This principle, obviously inspired by early LFG,14 runs counter to the current trend of work on complex predicate formation in LFG and HPSG. Within LFG, Alsina (1993), Butt (1995), Nino (1995), and Nordlinger (1995) have modified the position of traditional LFG that all predicate formation is accomplished in the lexicon. As I understand them, these works now restrict the designated role of the lexicon with respect to lexicalism to the morphological side of lexicalism. As a result both the lexicon and the syntax can contain predicates with unspecified or underspecified argument structures and the syntax has the power to equip predicates with function inventories. At least in part in reaction to this extension of the power of the syntax at the cost of the lexicon, different assumptions about syntax ("Extended X-bar Theory") and morphology have become necessary within LFG. HPSG has been in open violation of Functional Lexicalism at least since the highly influential paper of Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989) in which the authors presented an analysis of the German verb cluster in terms of a theory of argument attraction (also known as argument inheritance). In argument attraction, a head subcategorizes for another head (i.e., before that subordinate head has had a chance to combine with its subcategorized arguments) and by combining with that head in phrase structure "attracts" or "inherits" the arguments of the subordinate head. The diagram below provides a schematic example: note that the outer expression as well as the
388
Gert Webelhuth
final element on its SUBCAT list are lexical verbs. The SUBCAT list of the outer expression consists of the SUBCAT list of its final argument plus the final argument itself:
Given that the adicity of the subordinate head typically is not known in the lexicon, the adicity of the "attracting" head cannot be known in the lexicon either and is only determined in the syntactic component after lexical insertion (once [1] has been instantiated). This insertion of an expression with a lexically unspecified or underspecified argument structure is what the Principle of Functional Lexicalism prohibits. Hinrichs and Nakazawa's concept of argument attraction has been highly influential in the analysis of the verb clusters of various Germanic languages and has found application outside of that linguistic domain as well. See, for instance, Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1994), Heinz and Matiasek (1994), Kathol (1994, 1995), and many others. There can be no doubt that certain syntactic analyses of complex predicates have become easier to formulate once the restriction against predicate formation in the syntactic component was eliminated. Once the floodgates were opened, it did not take long for researchers to take advantage of the new analytical possibilities the more powerful syntactic component offered. Nevertheless, I believe that a careful weighing of both the conceptual and the empirical evidence favors a grammatical model where predicate formation is not distributed over the lexicon and the syntax but takes place exclusively in the lexicon. From a conceptual point of view, this leads to a very clean and attractive division of labor between the lexicon and the syntax: the lexicon forms predicates and the syntax saturates them in the process of forming phrases! In fact, I believe that this very simple statement can serve as the functional definition of the syntactic component: The syntactic component saturates predicates in phrase structure. This proposition functionally delineates the lexicon and the syntax along lines that are both intuitive and empirically successful: (i) from a functional point of view, the syntax only saturates but does not create new predicates—in this sense the syntax always reacts to the lexical resources inserted into syntactic schemas and is a projection of
Causatives and Argument Structure
389
the lexicon; (ii) from a formal point of view, the syntax creates phrases and is unable to create words. The lexicon, on the other hand, is a repository of basic words, basic predicates, and patterns for the formation of derived words and predicates. But restricting all predicate formation to one grammatical component has additional conceptual advantages with directly measurable results. In a theory with heavy reliance on typed feature structures such as HPSG, locating all predicate formation in a single grammatical component makes it possible to capture generalizations across different predicates by making them subtypes of common supertypes from which they inherit shared information. This yields grammatical analyses that are able to capture linguistically significant generalizations that are left unexpressed by theories that cannot integrate all predicates into the same inheritance hierarchy, because not all predicates are formed in the same grammatical component. More concretely, given (i) the strong ties between predicates and morphology (as discussed earlier), (ii) the existence of lexical gaps and irregularities in predicate formation, and (iii) the uncontroversial independent necessity of a lexical type hierarchy, the lexicon suggests itself as the most natural component of predicate formation. Once the challenge has been met to make the theory of the lexicon compatible with the traditional conception of predicates as being expressible either synthetically or analytically, a type theory with multiple inheritance allows for a simple and intuitive capturing of the similarities and differences between various predicate types, including the causative predicates from the six languages discussed in the previous section and analyzed in more detail below. In contrast, a "mixed" theory of predicate formation (i.e., one that forms synthetically expressed predicates in the lexicon but analytically expressed predicates in the syntax) is unable to subsume these different predicates under the same inheritance hierarchy and thus misses linguistically significant generalizations that the unified theory of predicate formation can capture. One problem the mixed theory of predicate formation in HPSG faces is that it is hard to see how the mechanism of argument attraction can be adequately constrained so as to make typologically valid predictions. Nothing stands in the way, as far as I can see, of the postulation of an argument attractor that attracts the arguments of two or more zero-level verbs it combines with and that appends the reverse of the argument list of its first argument to the argument list of its additional arguments; or an argument attractor that maps the attracted argument structure into some shuffled output of the result of appending the input triply to itself; or an argument attractor that attracts a passive argument structure and in the process of
390
Gert Webelhuth
attraction reconverts the argument configuration into an active argument structure, etc. Each of these hypothetical argument attractors is easy to formulate with the vocabulary that is currently available, but no language has expressions of this kind as far as I am aware.15 Thus, for any reasonable application of argument attraction it is easy to slightly modify its formulation to generate an argument attractor that is not exemplified in any language of the world (in this sense the argument attraction theory suffers from the same conceptual problem as the theory that allows syntactic well-formedness conditions to look arbitrarily deeply into morphological derivations). In the remainder of this paper I will sketch how theories like the one defended here and in greater detail (and also greater formal precision) in Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998) can circumvent this very serious theoretical problem.16 In essence, the solution consists of two decisions in grammar design: (i) The grammar adheres to the Principle of Functional Lexicalism in (44) and consequently relegates all predicate formation to the lexical component. The syntactic component is really to be thought of as the Saturation in Phrase Structure Component, as it cannot create arbitrary new predicates in the manner suggested in the previous paragraph, (ii) The grammar imposes strong well-formedness conditions on the type inventory and type structure of the lexicon as the single grammatical component where predicate formation can occur. It does so by providing a closed inventory of (classes of) highly valued notions that can be expressed by natural language predicates and a closed inventory of (classes of) highly valued argument (= functional) structures that can realize these predicates. Once these type constraints are formulated properly (which, of course, will require much more empirical work in the properties of predicates in different languages of the world), only empirically justified predicates can exit the lexicon and no unwanted predicate types can come into existence in the syntactic component either, since predicates cannot be formed there at all. 3.2. The Index Interpretation Principle We will postulate one final constraint that seems particularly natural before we apply our overall theory of predicates to causatives and try to make good on some of the promises we made earlier. In Pollard and Sag (1987), the binding theory applies to the SUBCAT lists of signs based on the relation of relative obliqueness. Following Borsley (1987), Pollard and Sag (1994:Chap. 9) split the SUBCAT list into different valence lists for subjects, specifiers, and complements. In order to still apply the binding theory in the standard fashion, they postulate a separate
Causatives and Argument Structure
391
level of argument structure which is constrained to be the concatenation of the three valence lists. This creates a systematic relationship between the valence of a lexical sign and its argument structure. However, in later work this systematic relationship has been broken and replaced by an unconstrained relationship between valence and argument structure. For instance, Manning and Sag (1995) present lexical representations for causative predicates that allow argument structures to be arbitrarily related to the valence. Thus, in Japanese the argument structure is the concatenation of the subject and complement valences: (45) Japanese (Manning and Sag, 1995:18)
On the other hand, in Chi-Mwi:ni, the argument structure registers the causer (subject) and the causee (direct object) but arbitrarily leaves out the lower patient, even though that patient remains a subcategorized complement of the verb (in schema (46) that argument is contained in the list L which, the reader will note, is part of the argument structure of the underlying stem and of the COMPS list of the derived causative; the argument structure of the causative itself does not inherit the arguments in L of the embedded stem, though): (46) Chi-Mwi:ni (Manning and Sag, 1995:28)
392
Gert Webelhuth
For Turkish, finally, the authors are forced to postulate yet a third pattern, namely, one in which the argument structure of the derived causative again misses some of the arguments of the underlying stem by arbitrary decision. This time, it is the causee argument of the underlying stem rather than the lower patient which is left out of the derived argument structure but is carried along as a subcategorized element into the higher valence: (47) Turkish (Manning and Sag, 1995:31)
The motivation for these analyses come from binding theory. Recall from the last section, for instance, that Chi-Mwi:ni has a morphological bi-clausal causative. One of the pieces of evidence for the biclausality of the causative came from the fact that the causee but not the causer can bind an anaphor in the lower patient position. The relevant examples are repeated below: (48)
(49)
An anaphor in the lower patient position can only be anteceded by the direct object causee, as shown in (48), but crucially cannot be anteceded by the subject causer, because that causer is outside of the minimal clause containing the lower patient, given that the Chi-Mwi:ni causative is biclausal (yet realized by a synthetically expressed predicate). Since their approach does not permit them to view the Chi-Mwi:ni causative as
Causatives and Argument Structure
393
biclausal, Manning and Sag attempt to capture the binding-theoretic facts of (48)-(49) by assigning these causatives an argument structure that arbitrarily leaves the lower patient of the embedded verb off the argument structure of the derived causative and by allowing the syntactic binding theory to "look into" words and applying binding constraints not only to the highest morphological level but at any morphological level, however deeply embedded. This will account for the difference between (48) and (49): since the lower patient has been left off the highest argument structure arbitrarily, it cannot be bound by the subject causer but must be bound at the level of the argument structure of the stem. At this level the only possible binder is the subject of the verb hit which is interpreted as the direct object causee in (48) and (49). For Japanese and Turkish, similar binding-theoretic facts force the authors into making the otherwise unmotivated argument structure assumptions in (46) and (47). Manning and Sag's (1995) approach to causatives loses two further linguistically important generalizations which it is important to be aware of. First, because argument structures in their system of causatives stand in an arbitrary relationship to valence, they not only lose generalizations about the syntax of causatives but are moreover forced into a very unnatural definition of passive in terms of not argument structure alone, as one might have expected, but a combination of argument structure and COMPS. The reason for this is that in languages that can passivize causatives, all of the subcategorized arguments of the causative are inherited by the passivized causative. In Manning and Sag's system, however, the character of the argument structure does not guarantee that all the complements of the causative appear on its argument structure. Hence: Use of this noncanonical causative necessitates modification of the passive sort we gave earlier, so that it also will not lose additional complements that are not on the argument structure of the stem. A suitable reformulation . . . is:
. . . While binding evidence seems to necessitate the kind of noncanonical lexical entries that we have proposed here, the result is clearly an undesirable complication of the passive lexical entry.
394
Gert Webelhuth
This problem of course will arise not only with passives but with all other processes that might change the argument structure of the derived causative further, e.g., further causativization, middle formation, morphological reflexivization or reciprocalization, dative shift, etc. Presumably, in the end, none of the grammatical function changing operations that have traditionally been thought of as argument structure operations really have a uniform formulation in terms of argument structures. The second problem I want to mention briefly is the one the present article is concerned with mainly, namely, the similarity between synthetically and analytically expressed causatives. None of the three similar papers that we have mentioned (lida et al., 1994; Manning and Sag, 1995; Manning et al., 1996) provides an explicit comparison of the properties of synthetically and analytically expressed causatives. I believe that this is no accident. Careful consideration will show that the combination of (i) the argument structure approach to causatives favored by all three papers and (ii) the recursive lexical types approach to morphologically derived causatives cannot be extended to analytically expressed causatives in a manner that does not mention the same crucial analytical properties once in the domain of the lexicon for synthetically expressed causatives and separately again in the syntax for analytically expressed predicates. Inspection of the diagrams in (45)-(47) shows why this is the case. In each of the three structures, the valence, the content, and the ARG-S of the morphologically derived causative are created by the type definitions from information of a stem contained in the same lexical feature structure. As soon as the signal of causativization is not affixal but a free auxiliary, the data types in (45)-(47) will be useless in the derivation of the valence, the content, and the ARG-S of the syntactically formed causative predicates and completely different type constraints have to be formulated, with an obvious lack of explanation of why the constraints applying in the morphological and the syntactic system have exactly the same functional and semantic prerogatives, as shown empirically in section 2.17 I believe that the central problem that lies at the center of all these theoretical difficulties is that argument structure has in essence been made into a second syntactic level in HPSG that serves no other purpose than that of providing a level of representation to which the binding theory applies.18 Clearly, if there are no constraints on the form of argument structures then there are also no constraints on binding that the theory as a whole imposes. I will therefore propose a principle on argument structures that mutually constrains them relative to other features of a lexical sign. According to that constraint it is impossible to arbitrarily leave out valence elements simply for the purposes of binding theory. That means that a different solution has to be found to the binding problem in
Causatives and Argument Structure
395
Chi-Mwi:ni than the one that Manning and Sag propose. This problem will be readdressed later in the context of the remaining data from Chi-Mwi:ni. What is the intuition that underlies the concept of argument structure (or functional structure, for that matter)? What I want to suggest is that argument structures are a mechanism for classifying each semantic index of a predicate as one of a small number of syntactic notions for such purposes as case assignment, agreement, default topic, pro drop, binding, function changes, etc. The primary functional motivation for this seems to be the desire to code the semantic and pragmatic similarity between the properties of different argument roles, e.g., the desire to code alike the arguments of different verbs with similar entailments (e.g., the agentive hitters, eaters, kickers, etc. in the subject function of active sentences), or the desire to code the preference for particular arguments (typically the subject) to serve the function of default topic in the active voice. Given that there are many different dimensions of information in which expressions can be located (referential vs nonreferential, definite vs indefinite, specific vs nonspecific, agent vs patient, old information vs new information, topic vs focus, to list a few), it is not surprising that notions such as subject and direct object do not typically fully correlate with any of these properties. Rather, each dimension seems to specify preferred relationships to the grammatical functions (and probably also directly to one or the other pole in the other dimensions) with the result that argument structures (or functional structures) are best understood as prototypes in the sense of Rosch (1973) or cluster concepts as described for subjects in Keenan (1976); i.e., subjects are typically referential rather than nonreferential, definite rather than indefinite, old information rather than new information, etc. Given this understanding of the concept of argument structure ( = functional structure) and the grammatical functions that appear in the structure, it seems compelling to require that all signs obey the following well-formedness principle: (50) The Index Interpretation Principle For every free (i.e., non-existentially bound) index I in the CONT (= content) of a lexical predicate there is an argument in the predicate's argument structure whose index is I. For every argument in the argument structure of a lexical predicate whose index is I there is a path P in the predicate's CONT such that the value of P is I, where I is free in CONT. As can be seen, (50) requires the argument structure of a sign to stand in a certain specific relationship to the content of the same sign: the first
396
Gert Webelhuth
clause requires every index (that does not fall under the proviso) that participates in defining the content of the expression to appear in the expression's argument structure and be assigned a grammatical function there. If argument structures serve the end of grouping the semantic arguments of a predicate into syntactic classes for the purposes of a finite coding system of prototypical grammatical functions, then it is natural to require that this classification be complete in the sense that every semantic argument be so classified in every predicate (unless the semantic argument is existentially quantified at the predicate level already and not intended to ever be expressed syntactically). The second clause of (50) requires the reverse, namely, that each argument of a predicate that is syntactically classified in the argument structure must be a semantic argument of the predicate. Given the rationale for the existence of argument structure as a classification device, this constraint is natural as well.19 I continue to assume with Pollard and Sag (1994) and Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998) that besides argument-functional structure there is a separate level of categorial valence that determines how many categories a sign has to combine with in phrase structure for a categorially complete phrase to be created. It is the relation between the valence level and the argument structure that decides whether a given predicate is "pro-drop," i.e., has an understood subject that is not categorially expressed but may have semantic content, trigger agreement on the verb, bind anaphors, etc. If the argument-functional structure specifies a subject argument but the valence specifies no corresponding category, then the predicate has an understood subject. Clearly, given the propensity of natural language grammars to leave semantic arguments of predicates implicit, we cannot require that all semantic indices or grammatical functions be expressed by valence elements; this rules out a constraint for valence equivalent to the first clause of (50). Whether an equivalent to the second clause of that principle can be imposed depends on one's view of whether non-referential elements must always be assigned a grammatical function and/or whether their indexes reliably appear in the semantic content of the predicate that subcategorizes for them. We will not pursue this issue here.
4. THE ANALYSIS OF CAUSATTVES
In section 2 we presented examples of causative constructions from six languages that showed that there are at least three different recurring causative constructions in the world's languages and that each of these
Causatives and Argument Structure
397
constructions can be headed by a predicate that is expressed either synthetically or analytically. The goal of this section is to sketch an analysis of this data that optimally captures the generalizations that hold across the different causative constructions while still achieving descriptive adequacy, i.e., the theory must also be able to express in a plausible and acceptable fashion what is language-particular and unique about each causative construction. Whatever else we want to think about causatives, given what we have already said, we are committed to two assumptions: (i) many languages have such a systematic alternation between noncausative and causative predicates that their grammars must contain some mechanism that accounts for this linguistic pattern; (ii) in accordance with Functional Lexicalism, this mechanism must apply in the lexicons of these languages in such a way that it maps noncausative input entries into causative output entries. In current lexicalist theories of grammar, there are two primary candidates for the productive mapping mechanism under discussion: either (potentially recursive) lexical rules (as in Bresnan, 1982, or Pollard and Sag, 1987) or (potentially recursive) lexical data types that provide lexical entries with some attribute where they can specify which other lexical entry they are derived from (as in Krieger and Nerbonne, 1993 and Riehemann, 1993). It is not easy to find relevant differences between these two approaches, and perhaps versions of each can even be found which are both adequate for natural language and mere notional variants of each other. Be that as it may, in the present work I will use the first path and employ lexical rules to productively relate non-causative predicates to the causatives based on them.20 In what follows, I will make the following informal assumptions about signs: as in HPSG, signs are complex data structures that contain information in different dimensions of linguistic information, e.g., phonological, syntactic, semantic, etc. To simplify the exposition so that I can concentrate on the main conceptual argument I am trying to make in this article, I will be relatively vague about the definitions of the feature structures and the data types. I feel justified in doing so because a fully precise and detailed version of the theory is accessible to the interested reader in the form of Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998).21 Thus, for the top-level structure of the sign, I will assume the presence of three attributes: (51)
CSTRUC categorial structure, i.e. information about part of speech and morphological features; ISTRUC information structure, i.e., information about content ( = CONT) and argument (functional) structure (= ASTRUC);22
398
Gert Webelhuth
VAL
valence, i.e., information about the subcategorized arguments of an expression and the auxiliaries a head has to combine with to express a particular predicate.
In order to achieve our analytical goals, we will now employ the following strategy. We need our system of representations to make available six representations, one for each of the six causative predicates responsible for the properties of the causative constructions discussed in section 2. We find a systematic cline in the generality of the properties of these constructions: some of their properties hold for all causatives, e.g., their common meaning; some other properties, mainly their monoclausal, biclausal, or mixed behavior, hold only for a subset of the constructions; and finally some properties such as the surface expression of the causative predicates are completely language and construction specific. To be able to capture the generalizations and idiosyncrasies at all levels, we will postulate a data type called active-causative that contains the information that must be inherited by all causative predicates. For each of the three clausality types that we found in our typological survey of causatives in section 2 we will then postulate a lexical schema (= rule) which maps noncausative predicates to causative predicates in the manner consistent with the monoclausal, biclausal, or mixed profile required by the construction. This gives us the following intermediate structure of lexical schemas: (52) The Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal)23
While the three schemas that form the leaves of the tree in (52) determine the clausality profile and the grammatical function inventory of the causative construction they govern, they crucially do not fix the surface realization of the causative predicate or that of its categorial arguments. As we saw in section 2, one and the same clausality behavior can be expressed either synthetically or analytically and this is left to languageparticular choices. We will therefore postulate a division between the lexical schemas that the universal type system makes available for causatives and language-particular lexical rules for causative constructions. In particular, under our assumptions individual natural languages will
Causatives and Argument Structure
399
make use of the information in universally defined lexical rules to define language-particular subtypes of causative patterns. (53) shows the extension of the lexical rule graph above once the productive language-particular causative schemas from the six languages treated in this paper are adjoined to the leaves of the universal tree in (52): (53) The Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial)
Our first specific task will be to account for the properties that all causatives share no matter whatever else may distinguish them. I will assume that causatives uniformly express a cause relation that holds between a CAUSER and a caused state of affairs (= CAUSED-SOA) and moreover that in the active voice the CAUSER is always expressed as the subject of the predicate.24 We can efficiently capture these invariants by incorporating this information into the definition of the data type activecausative:
The final path in this feature structure says that the sign's argument structure (contained in its information structure) contains an element which is a subject whose index is the same as the index of the CAUSER in the cause state of affairs denoted by the sign (ASTRUC = argument structure; ELT = element of; su = subject). 4.1. The Analysis of Monoclausal Causatives With this feature structure at our disposal, we are in a position to present the three universal lexical schemas for causatives. We will begin
400
Gert Webelhuth
with the lexical schema for monoclausal causatives, the schema that both German and Malayalam use as a superschema to define their own productive causative schemas. Of course this schema takes on the form of a lexical rule in the current notation: (55) The Causative Construction, Type 1, (Lexical Schema)
Let us go through the features in this schema from top to bottom. The rule takes as input on the left a predicate and returns another predicate on the right, in particular an active-causative predicate. The right-hand side of the rule thus must contain all the information in the type activecausative and as we can see it does.25 The c-structural attribute is unspecified on both sides of this schema, as are the values of the path VAL:AUX. The reason for this is that the universal schema only expresses the meaning and the argument structural properties (in a wide sense, including certain subcategorization properties) of this monoclausal causative but leaves the surface spell-out of the predicate to individual languages that make use of this schema. The information structure (= ISTRUC) is where the most relevant information is stored. As can be read off from the representation, the semantic effect of causativizing a predicate is that the content of the input expres-
Causatives and Argument Structure
401
sion becomes identified with the caused state of affairs in the meaning of the causative predicate. The argument structure likewise is transformed. The input argument structure is partitioned into the subject argument and the remainder. Then the remainder is carried over in unchanged form into the argument structure of the newly formed causative predicate. The original subject's properties and relations are carried over as well, but they are associated with a different grammatical function in the output, namely, an oblique-indirect object. This is necessary, since the original subject is not the causer of the causative predicate and according to (54) the causer must be expressed as the predicate's subject. Since every predicate can have at most one subject, the original subject's properties and relations have to be functionally expressed differently after monoclausal causativization. Finally, note that the schema also carries over the subcategorization frame of the input predicate to the output but it adds one subcategorized phrase, namely, for the additional subject argument. This allows us to move on and to inspect the different ways in which German and Malayalam each express the information contained in the monoclausal causative construction. We begin with German. It defines a language-particular causative schema which is a subschema of (55): (56) The Causative Schema, Type 1 (German Instantiation)
All that needs to be contained in the German-specific schema are the German-specific ways of expressing the causative predicate on the surface and the categorial properties of the arguments the causative predicate selects.26 The schema requires that the following formal changes are made to the input predicate in the course of creating a predicate with the meaning and argument structure of a monoclausal causative: whatever lexeme the input CSTRUC mentions, the causative output must be realized by the bare infinitive of that lexeme; second, the causativized predicate must combine with a form of the auxiliary lassen in addition to the auxiliaries that the input must already contain. The schema also must fix
402
Gert Webelhuth
the categorial spell-out of the demoted causee: it is expressed by a prepositional phrase headed by the preposition von. In the informal notation used in this paper, the following is a reasonable representation for the transitive predicate waschen 'to wash':
(57)
When this predicate is entered into the German monoclausal causative pattern that results from fully spelling out all the features that this pattern inherits from the universal monoclausal causative pattern and the type active-causative, the following causative predicate is produced:
(58)
The predicate is realized by a combination of the bare infinitive of the main verb waschen and a form of the auxiliary lexeme lassen. This auxiliary-verb combination expresses the semantic content of a caused washing. As the indexes in the argument structure show, the CAUSER is expressed as a subject, the causee (i.e., the WASHER) in a von -headed
Causatives and Argument Structure
403
oblique PP, and the lower patient (the WASHED) as a direct object. Categorially, like all NP subjects of finite verbs in German, the CAUSER appears as a nominative NP and the direct object appears as an accusative NP. Assuming obvious syntactic schemas for the cancellation of the subcategorization and auxiliary requirements of predicates, this representation supports sentences of the kind we have been referring to as "German I" causatives.27 The absence of any doubled grammatical functions (e.g., two direct objects) in (13), which is a monoclausal property, is a function of the argument structure of a typical product of (56), e.g., (58): the ASTRUC contains a subject, a direct object, and an oblique and the same will be true for any causativized transitive input. Second, the monoclausal binding facts illustrated in (17)-(18) follow from the representation above as well. Recall Reis' Generalization (in our terminology) that the anaphoric pronoun sich must be bound by the subject of the minimal argument structure containing it. Inspection of (58) shows that if the lower patient is lexicalized with sich, then it will function as the direct object and will have to be bound by the subject of the argument structure which is interpreted as the CAUSER. This is exactly the state of affairs illustrated by (17) and (18) where the CAUSER but not the oblique CAUSEE is able to antecede the reflexive. This takes care of both of the diagnostics of monoclausality as well as the surface expression of the causative predicate in the construction "German I." Let us now see how the relative similarities and differences of the other monoclausal causative construction, namely, that of Malayalam, can be captured in our approach. Like German, Malayalam defines a causative lexical schema and declares it a subtype of the universal monoclausal causative schema. Also like in German, the Malayalam construction mentions only spell-out information in its language-particular schema:
(59) The Causative Schema, Type 1 (Malayalam Instantiation)
404
Gert Webelhuth
Observe three crucial differences in the spell-out of the Malayalam monoclausal causative compared to its German analog: whereas German uses a combination of the bare infinitive of the main verb and a form of the auxiliary lassen to express the causative, (i) Malayalam does not add an auxiliary when causativizing a main verb (note that the paths VALIAUX are identical in the input and output of the Malayalam schema), (ii) Malayalam has a distinguished morphological category for the causative which it requires the main verb to appear in (cf. the path CSTRUC:VFORM), and (iii) the demoted subject is expressed as an instrumental NP. Feeding a typical transitive verb such as pinch into the Malayalam monoclausal pattern would result in the following causative predicate meaning "cause to pinch":
(60) Illustration: The Type 1 Causative of the Malayalam Verb nulli
It is easy to see that even though this predicate differs from its German counterpart seen earlier in that it is expressed by a single morphological word, the two predicates will both behave monoclausally in every respect, since monoclausality is independent of the number of words that express a predicate. In particular, the existence of three distinct grammatical functions in the causative (20) follows from the presence of a subject, a direct object, and
Causatives and Argument Structure
405
an oblique in the argument structure of (60). This was taken to be a monoclausal property. The fact that as shown in (21) under passivization the lower patient rather than the causee becomes the surface subject of the passive follows from the fact that in (60) the lower patient is the direct object and, presumably, in Malayalam as in many other languages direct objects but not obliques can promote to subject status in the passive. The passivizability of the lower patient was taken to be another indication for monoclausal causativization. Finally, the binding facts in (23) follow from the same considerations that accounted for the binding-theoretic behavior of the German anaphor sich in the German monoclausal causative. In sum, our lexical theory of causative formation captures all the generalizations across the German and Malayalam causatives that need to be captured and yet allows the two languages to express their languageparticular idiosyncrasies. The functional-semantic similarities are accounted for by postulating a universal monoclausal causative pattern which both languages define subschemas of that serve to fix the way the functional-semantic information they share is expressed on the surface in a language-particular fashion. What is crucial to the success of this account is that lexical entries of predicates can specify an auxiliary valence that allows them to commit themselves to combining with certain auxiliaries in phrase structure. Since the lexicon thus contains information about the complete spell-out of a predicate, it is possible to incorporate into one type hierarchy predicates that spell out the same information with similar argument structures even though some are expressed by single morphological words and others by verb-auxiliary combinations. In this manner generalizations can be captured that alternative theories of complex predicate formation, in particular theories involving lexically underspecified argument structures and argument attraction in the syntax, simply miss.
4.2. The Analysis of Biclausal Causatives
It is not hard to see in what ways the universal schema for purely biclausal causatives has to differ from the monoclausal schema to account for the systematic differences we find between the two kinds of causatives. The
406
Gert Webelhuth
biclausal schema has to take the following form: (61) The Causative Construction, Type 2 (Lexical Schema)
Like the monoclausal schema, this one leaves the values of CSTRUC and VALIAUX unspecified, so that this information can be fixed at the language-particular level. Note that the two schemas also have the same semantic effects. They differ, however, in their argument structure and subcategorization effects as they have to in order to account for the clausality differences we have diagnosed. Recall that the monoclausal schema took the input argument structure, demoted the old subject to an oblique and added a new subject function for the CAUSER. It thus took as input one single argument structure and returned another single argument structure as output. The biclausal causative of course has to produce two argument structure units from the single argument structure unit it takes as input. The schema above shows how this is accomplished. On the left we see that the input argument structure is partitioned into the subject and the remainder. The reason for this is that we need to keep track of the subject argument of the input, since the output will in effect be a raising to object construction and will therefore have to contain an object that is structure-shared with the subject of the embedded argument structure clause. The schema does this by embedding the whole argument structure of the input as a complement clause (= CCL) into the argument structure of the output. Moreover, it adds two grammatical functions, a subject and a direct object, to the matrix argument structure clause. The subject expresses the CAUSER as is required
Causatives and Argument Structure
407
by the type active-causative and the direct object bears the same properties as the subject of the input (and hence also the subject of the complement clause of the causative output predicate). All in all, the causative predicate produced by (61) is biclausal, with the direct object of the higher clause being structure-shared with the subject of the embedded argument structure clause. As far as subcategorization is concerned, the effect of the biclausal schema is similar to that of the monoclausal one we saw earlier. The German-specific lexical schema for the biclausal causative construction need only determine the language-specific surface expression of the predicate and its arguments. Recall that, like the monoclausal causatives, the biclausal ones are expressed by the analytic combination of a bare infinitival main verb and a form of the auxiliary lassen: (62) The Causative Construction, Type 2 (German Instantiation)
When taking the noncausative transitive main verb waschen in (57) as input, this lexical schema produces the following biclausal output predicate: (63) Illustration: The Type 2 Causative of the German Verb waschen
408
Gert Webelhuth
(63) and the biclausal representations of other transitive verbs directly account for the empirical properties found in German biclausal causatives. In particular, the presence of two accusative NP direct objects in (24) expressing the causee and the lower patient of the underlying verb follows from the presence of two argument structure clauses with one direct object each in (63). The binding-theoretic fact illustrated by (25) that in the biclausal causative the anaphor sich in the lower patient position must be anteceded by the accusative CAUSEE and cannot be bound by the subject CAUSER, follows from the biclausal argument structure of (63) as well. As the indexes show, the lower patient in the biclausal causative bears the grammatical function of direct object of the embedded argument structure clause. Recall that sich must be bound by the subject of the minimal argument structure clause containing it. As can be seen, in (63) this subject is interpreted as the CAUSEE rather than the CAUSER. Chi-Mwi:ni has a biclausal causative construction as well but expresses its predicate as a single word rather than an analytic auxiliary-verb combination. The properties of this construction laid out in section 2 can be accounted for if Chi-Mwi:ni makes use of the following languageparticular subschema of the universal biclausal causative schema:
(64) The Causative Construction, Type 2 (Chi-Mwi:ni Instantiation)
Note that this Chi-Mwi:ni biclausal pattern differs from the "German II" biclausal pattern in exactly the same way that the Malayalam monoclausal pattern differs from "German I:" Chi-Mwi:ni uses no auxiliary in its language-particular expression but has a designated morphological category to signal that an input predicate has undergone the causative schema of this language.
Causatives and Argument Structure
409
A typical causativized transitive predicate in Chi-Mwi:ni would look as follows:
(65) Illustration: The Type 2 Causative of the Chi-Mwi:ni Verb dndik
A look back at the examples in (26)-(30) should convince the reader that this representation will account for the biclausal characteristics of the Chi-Mwi:ni causative construction. The reader will be aware that our theory not only is able to capture the generalizations that this synthetically expressed causative shares with the analytically expressed causative "German II," but it does so under the restrictive conceptual assumptions of Functional and Morphological Lexicalism. In particular, our theory captures the binding-theoretic facts of these causatives without compromising the Index Interpretation Principle: all indexes that appear in the CONT of the predicate [as well as the German predicate represented in (61)] are paired with an argument in the argument structure and vice versa, as should be the case for a well-constrained argument (functional) structure.
4.3. The Analysis of Mixed Causatives This brings us to what are arguably the most interesting cases of causative constructions, those that we have called "mixed" because they behave monoclausally in some respects but biclausally in others. At this point we must finally face the fact that the diagnostics for monoclausality
410
Gert Webelhuth
and biclausality cannot be interpreted as absolute, since otherwise the mixed cases could not exist. Rather, the diagnostics are no more than pretheoretical diagnostics and at least some of them on occasion yield a "false positive," i.e., declare a construction as monoclausal or biclausal even though in effect it falls into the opposite clausality class. Recall from our prior discussion in section 2 that the mixed cases behave biclausally with respect to (some) binding theoretic properties but behave as if only one argument structure clause is present in all other respects we examined. We will take that observation as our guide to the correct analysis of these constructions: their properties can all be captured if we assume that they are monoclausal but that the binding theory treats this one causative clause as containing two binding domains for anaphors, presumably because the causative semantically contains one caused state of affairs embedded within a second, i.e., the causing, state of affairs. By allowing the binding theory to sometimes define binding domains on argument structure alone but also sometimes to take the semantic structure into account that the argument structure classifies, we have an elegant and intuitive explanation of why it is that precisely single argument structure clauses that express two semantic "clauses" can contain two binding domains.28 For the Italian construction introduced in section 2 we will therefore postulate the following causative schema: (66) The Causative Schema, Type 1 (Italian Instantiation)
Observe that there is no need for the postulation of a third universal causative schema, since we are now claiming that the mixed cases are simply monoclausal as far as their argument structure is concerned. The above schema therefore is simply a subschema of the universal monoclausal schema (55).29 The Italian subschema fixes the surface spell-out of this causative as a combination of the bare infinitive of the underlying main verb as supported by a form of the auxiliary fare. (67) contains an example of a product of this schema based on the input of the transitive
Causatives and Argument Structure
411
verb riparare 'to repair': (67) Illustration: The Type 1 Causative of the Italian Verb riparare
This representation accounts for the presence of three different grammatical functions in causativized transitive verbs documented in (31). Since the lower patient rather than the causee bears the grammatical function of direct object, this lexical structure also directly supports the observation from (32) that under passivization the lower patient of the main verb becomes the subject of the passivized causative. These are all properties that fall out immediately from a monoclausal analysis of this causative at the level of argument (functional) structure. Recall, in contrast, the data in (34)-(35). They argue for the existence of two binding domains for the anaphor se stess- in this causative. Clearly, given the other assumptions we have made, we cannot claim that these binding domains correspond to two argument structure clauses. Rather, we will assume that binding theory is not only sensitive to argument structure units but may in addition refer to the semantic units that are associated with the argument structure. Since the semantics of the causative contains two states of affairs, it is natural to suppose that the two binding domains correspond to these two states of affairs rather than simply to units in the argument structure. The Italian anaphor se stess- therefore is subject to the following binding constraint: (68) Binding-theoretic requirements of the Italian anaphor se stesso: se stess- is bound by a term grammatical function within the minimal argument structure clause containing it; it cannot be bound by a logical subject other than the logical subject of the minimal state of affairs containing its index.
412
Gert Webelhuth
(68) thus claims that a combination of argument structure notions and semantic notions must be appealed to in order to account for se stess-. This anaphor must have a non-oblique antecedent30 within the minimal argument structure clause containing it. The second clause of the condition says that if there are two potential antecedents within that minimal argument structure clause for the anaphor, then it must take the argument that serves as the logical subject of the minimal semantic unit that contains the anaphor's index. The presence of two semantic states of affairs in the causative and the sensitivity of the binding condition of se stess- to semantic states of affairs thus create two binding domains within a single argument structure clause. Since the same effect could have been achieved by the presence of two argument structure clauses, it is easy to see why our binding theoretic diagnostic yields a "false positive" precisely under these circumstances. By giving a monoclausal analysis to this Italian causative, we have captured the monoclausal properties of the construction. (68) explains the data that this monoclausal analysis could not account for: (34) is ungrammatical and (35) grammatical because the (phonologically unrealized) causer in both sentences and the indirect object causee both occur within the minimal argument structure clause containing se stess-. Under these circumstances, the semantically closer logical subject wins out which in this case is the indirect object causee; the causer is semantically one state of affairs "too far away." The analysis of the Turkish data is almost identical to that of the Italian construction we just saw. The Turkish causative under discussion also makes use of the universal monoclausal causative schema but it differs from the Italian case in requiring the causative predicate to be expressed by a causative form of the underlying main verb. This morphological signal is functionally equivalent to the presence of the auxiliary fare in Italian:
(69)
The Causative Schema, Type 1 (Turkish Instantiation)
Causatives and Argument Structure
413
An example output of the Turkish causative is found in (70). It is derived from the underlying verb "to open": (70) Illustration: The Type 1 Causative of the Turkish Verb "to open"
The internal structure of this kind of representation accounts for the presence of three different grammatical functions in causativized transitives such as (37) and also explains the passivization facts in (38)-(39) in analogy to similar Italian facts. This takes care of the monoclausal properties of this construction and leaves the binding facts in (41)-(42) to be accounted for. It is clear that the binding behavior of the Turkish anaphor kendim is similar to that of the Italian anaphor se stess- in that it must refer both to the argument structure and the semantic structure of the predicate. There is one crucial difference, however. Whereas a closer logical subject in the Italian case prevents a more distant logical subject from anteceding se stess-, the Turkish sentence is simply ambiguous, as long as both potential antecedents are functionally close enough to the anaphor. This follows from the definition in (71): (71) Binding-theoretic requirements of the Turkish anaphor kendim: kendim is bound by the subject of the minimal argument structure containing it or the logical subject of the minimal state of affairs containing its index, provided that logical subject bears a term grammatical function. This concludes our discussion of the "mixed causatives."
414
Gert Webelhuth
5. SUMMARY
This paper has presented the data from six causative constructions in the world's languages. It is not difficult to analyze each of these causatives by itself without reference to the others. However, it was shown that there are linguistically significant generalizations that hold across them that a linguistic theory can and hence should capture. On the other hand, there are also generalizations that hold only across a subset of the causatives and each construction bears properties that are idiosyncratic to it as well. The analytical challenge to the linguist consists in whether he or she can develop a linguistic formalism that is able to express all the generalizations at the required levels of generality from universal, to construction specific, to idiosyncratic. It would be disappointing if the best we can do is to assign a set of properties to each individual causative construction without any reflection or recognition that some properties of causatives are found in causative construction after causative construction while others are completely language-particular or even confined to one single causative construction. The approach to causatives (and predicates in general) in this paper is meant to take a first step in the desired direction. It makes an analytical distinction between universal and language-particular patterns and views each causative construction as typically being composed of a combination of both. In particular, the universal schemas contribute the meaning and the argument structure properties of causatives and leave it to the language-particular and in some cases construction-particular causative schemas to fill in the surface realization of the particular causative. In order to reach the goal of capturing the semantic and argument structure generalizations across the different causatives, however, it is necessary to abandon the wide-spread assumption that the lexicon is subject to the constraint that it cannot contain entries for analytically expressed predicates. From a primarily information-driven perspective, this is a curious constraint in any event in that it makes morphology more important than semantics or argument structure in defining the function and the limits of the lexicon. It has the consequence that two predicates which merely differ in syntheticity but otherwise have exactly the same meaning or argument structure must nevertheless be generated in different grammatical modules. Not only does it strike me as curious that the two German past tense forms lachte "laughed" and gelacht hat "laughed" must be generated in different grammatical modules even though they can be used with exactly the same meaning, in addition this goes against the intuition of traditional grammarians that both of these expressions are members of the paradigm of the predicate lachen. In any event, the
Causatives and Argument Structure
415
modern generative literature has not only moved away from this traditional insight but seems to maintain this form-based distinction more as a matter of inherited ritual than because it is superior conceptually or empirically to the traditional information-driven alternative. The present paper has returned to the traditional insight and treats synthetic and analytical forms of the same predicate in the same grammatical component. If this is desirable, then the strong affinity between the lexicon and morphology and the wide-spread existence of idiosyncrasies in predicate formation argues for the lexicon as the single locus of all predicate formation. Consequently, in order to handle both synthetically and analytically expressed predicates, I follow Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998) in postulating a valence attribute AUX that allows predicates to consist of auxiliary-main verb combinations. The combination of (i) a distinction between universally available and language-particular predicate schemas and (ii) a formalism that can describe synthetically and analytically expressed predicates in the same grammatical component and in the same inheritance hierarchy makes it possible to capture the generalizations concerning causatives at all the levels of generality shown to exist in the present article. The properties that all causatives share are expressed in the type active-causative that all causative predicates belong to. The monoclausal and biclausal causatives inherit their specific properties from universal causative schemas and the properties idiosyncratic to each causative construction are captured at the level of language-particular causative schemas that inherit from the universal causative type and one of the two universal schemas. It remains to be seen whether other assumptions are able to reach this amount of explanation in the area of causatives. At this time, it seems to me that mixed theories of predicate formation, i.e., those that allow predicates to be formed both in the lexicon but also in the syntax through argument merger, are principally incapable of reaching the same level of linguistic explanation as the uniform and information-driven theory of predicate formation in the lexicon that was proposed in the present paper and is fleshed out in greater detail in Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Versions of this paper were presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference in Ann Arbor, the HPSG Workshop in Tubingen, the HPSG Workshop in Pittsburgh, the Ohio State University, the University of South Carolina, the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and the 1996 Holland
416
Gert Webelhuth
Institute of Linguistics Summer School. I thank the audiences at these presentations for their helpful input and friendly suggestions. In particular, I acknowledge the help of Mirjam Fried, Bob Kasper, Chris Manning, Carl Pollard, and Ivan Sag. Farrell Ackerman, of course, deserves special thanks for his great influence on my thinking over the last few years. That influence can be felt on every page of this paper. Two anonymous reviewers read an earlier draft of the paper very carefully and gave me very helpful and constructive advice, so much in fact that I had to leave some of it for future research. All remaining errors are of course my own.
NOTES 1 Ich widme diese Arbeit meinen Geschwistern Ellen Gabriel und Wolfgang Webelhuth fur deren liebe Freundschaft und Unterstiitzung wahrend meiner intellektuellen Wegfindung. An anonymous reviewer asks about the necessity of pretheoretical diagnostics, given that "these properties are defined on ARG-S in HPSG (or perhaps VALENCE lists)." As the reviewer's wording suggests, the nature of ARG-S and VALENCE and their relative delimitation are still under healthy discussion in HPSG. As with the nature of syntheticity vs analyticity I felt that it was worth trying to approach causatives with a relatively empty slate of theoretical commitments in order to see which theoretical commitments are necessary for an account that best captures their apparent linguistically significant generalizations. I may of course be mistaken in what generalizations are linguistically significant. 3 See Kiparsky (1987), Bresnan and Kanerva (1989), and the use of obliqueness hierarchies in Pollard and Sag (1987, 1994). 4 Reis notes some exceptions to the domain restriction (but not the antecedent restriction) when sich is embedded within a prepositional phrase or occurs in certain word orders in subject-to-object raising constructions. Both of these circumstances will be carefully avoided here; all our examples are therefore expected to fall under Reis' Generalization. A reviewer asks me to address "an obvious alternative analysis of German I . . . [that] involves morphologically unrealized passivization of the downstairs verb, with the patient becoming the subject of the downstairs verb and the object of the upstairs verb 'cause.'" One problem with that analysis is that not all passivizable verbs can appear in German I. The verb sehen 'to see,' for instance, can be passivized but cannot be causativized with German I: *Sie liefl das Buck von dem Jungen sehen 'She made the boy see the book.' The binding-theory also argues strongly against a biclausal construal of German I: in Siet lie ft en die Bucher aneinander i schicken. 'They had the books sent to each other.' the surface subject can bind into the prepositional phrase argument of the lower verb. In the biclausal analysis the antecedent and the reciprocal would have to be in two different clauses but this reciprocal can never be bound across clauses elsewhere, as far as I am aware.
Causatives and Argument Structure
417
6 The Malayalam data is cited from Marantz (1984, pages 276, 279, 282), where it is attributed to K. P. Mohanan (1982a, b, 1983). 7 The Chi-Mwi:ni data is cited from Marantz (1984:267, 270, 271), where it is attributed to Abasheikh (1979). 8 Following Marantz (1984), these two identically marked NPSbear two identical grammatical functions, implicating two separate clauses. However, a reviewer makes the point that the constrast between (27) and (28) might be made to follow from a monoclausal analysis where the second object of ditransitive verbs cannot be passivized. As the reviewer further suggests, this issue should be decidable through inspection of the behavior under passivization of the second object of a lexically ditransitive verb like give. 9 The Italian data is cited from Burzio (1986:225, 254, 264) and Rosen (1990:107). 10 Since it is well known that in languages with more than one anaphor these do not all need to have the same binding domains (cf. Dalrymple, (1993)), we cannot exclude that other anaphors in Italian will behave differently. This is immaterial to our major theoretical point, however, that this Italian causative in at least some respects behaves monoclausally and in at least some other respects behaves biclausally. n The Turkish data is cited from Aissen (1974:10, 11, 14, 15, 131, 132). 12 Note also the proposal in Baker (1988) that grammatical function changes are frequently the consequence of incorporation, a traditionally morphological concept. 13 See lida et al. (1994) for an approach to Japanese causatives that allows the syntactic binding theory to look into morphologically formed words at arbitrary depths. Manning et al. (1996) both provide a different interpretation of the binding data from Japanese causatives than the earlier paper and eliminate all syntactic references to the properties of the stems of morphologically derived items. It is clear that their original proposal would have opened the door to the formulation of an indefinite number of typologically unmotivated syntactic constraints on morphological derivations. The Principle of Morphological Lexicalism nails that door shut again. 14 LFG's Principle of Direct Syntactic Encoding outlawed changes in grammatical functions. (44) takes this one step further and additionally forbids that the initial function assignment is accomplished in the syntactic component. 15 Also conspicuously absent from the predicate formation toolbox are all kinds of alphanumeric orderings, even though those are omnipresent in cognition in general. Why are there no argument attractors that order the arguments they attract in alphabetic order using part of speech as a key? And no predicate formation processes have been reported in any language, as far as I am aware, that would order arguments by reference to the properties even and odd number. (Phonological processes involving stress do seem to be sensitive to these properties, though, so one cannot argue that they are never used in grammars—they are simply not used in predicate formation!) In my view, the systematic absence of these otherwise cognitively natural notions in predicate formation casts strong suspicion on the view that predicate formation is the product of such algebraically generalized relations as argument attraction in
418
Gert Webelhuth
combination with other freely available cognitive notions, including properties such as even and odd that are demonstrably present elsewhere in the linguistic system. Even if—contrary to my expectation—such a process as argument attraction will be retained in the linguist's toolkit, I am convinced that its contribution will eventually be seen as insignificant in comparison to the importance of the restrictions (no reverse, alphabetize, triple append, even, odd, etc.) that have to be imposed on it to exclude the massive amount of structures it would otherwise wrongly allow for in the world's languages. 16 Note that rather than being a new problem, this is the classical problem of post-Aspects syntactic theorizing in Generative Grammar. (See, for instance, my comments in connection with Government and Binding Theory in Webelhuth, 1995:9, "Introduction.") Exactly the same kinds of problems have arisen over the years with respect to the proliferation of Fillmore's Case roles, Aspects style phrase structure rules, transformational rules, functional heads like AGR-O, TNS, NEG, etc. One of the reviewers proposes that commonalities between analytic and synthetic causatives might be captured by virtue of the common result of their formation and asks why I apparently accept "only arguments that capture commonalities in analytic and synthetic causatives by positing commonalities in the process by which they are created." The reason I am biased toward the latter view is simply that I know that it can capture the linguistically significant generalizations that must be dealt with [see section 4 below and chapter 9 of Ackerman and Webelhuth, 1998]. A similar demonstration has not been given for the alternative solution and I am not convinced that one can be given. If further research shows otherwise, then I would be very interested in weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches and might well end up favoring the solution the reviewer proposes. 18 In Manning and Sag's (1995:4) words, the architecture which allows arbitrary dissociations between valence and argument structure "takes HPSG a certain distance from the monolevel, monostratal roots of GPSG and HPSG2." 19 At least as far as the literal use of predicates is concerned. Perhaps idiomatic predicates should be defined as those which violate the second half of (50); i.e., they have grammatical arguments that do not correspond to any of their semantic arguments. Likewise, for expletives if they do not contribute any meaning to CONT. As stated, raising verbs as well violate the first half of (50), since the verb embedded under them may contribute indexes to the raising verb's CONT for which there is no corresponding argument in the raising verb's argument structure. To cover this case, predicates must be allowed to delegate the argument structure "identification" of some of the semantic indexes they govern to subordinate predicates. I will not attempt a proper formulation here that takes this into account. (50) allows one to characterize the class of the syntactically most productive verbs as those that satisfy both parts of (50). These are the verbs that can typically appear in most syntactic constructions such as actives, passives, questions, relative clauses, etc. Interestingly, by making reference to the parts of (50) which they
Causatives and Argument Structure
419
violate, one can also characterize the standard classes of verbs that have a much less regular syntactic distribution. For instance, raising verbs, verbs governing expletive subjects, and idioms frequently cannot be passivized and are syntactically exceptional in other respects as well. I believe that the conjunction of the two parts of (50) is a central part of the definition of "unmarked predicate" in Universal Grammar. But UG also allows for one of the conjuncts to be slightly weaker; as far as I can tell, though, it seems to require every predicate to satisfy at least one conjunct fully. Should that claim hold up, this would be a significant predictive constraint on natural language predicates that the lexical type hierarchy of HPSG can express (i.e., as a relational constraint). 20 To cover all bases, however, Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998) take the second path. I am somewhat more sympathetic to the data type analysis as compared to the lexical rule approach, since it seems to be easier to integrate with a sign-based approach based on typed feature structures and multiple inheritance in a type hierarchy. But this may be no more than a personal preference. 21 That theory has been implemented in the PAGE grammar development environment developed by the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft fur Kimstliche Intelligenz. I am deeply indebted to the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University, especially Ivan Sag and Dan Flickinger, for allowing me to use their facilities, and to Dan Flickinger, Rob Malouf, Peter Skadhauge, and Stephan Oepen for their generous and much-needed help with the PAGE system. 22I use the terms "argument structure" and "functional structure" interchangeably. This structure simply associates each argument of a predicate with a grammatical function from traditional grammar, e.g., "subject" or "object." I believe that cross-linguistic generalizations across such recurrent relations as passives, middles, causatives, etc. cannot be captured without grammatical functions, since languages are too diverse categorially for grammatical categories to serve this purpose (for instance, some languages express direct objects as prepositional phrases rather than as noun phrases). 23 Actually, we will soon integrate the mixed causatives with the monoclausal causatives. (52) and (53) are thus only preliminary. 24 T. Mohanan (1990), Alsina (1993), and Butt (1995) assume a three-place analysis of causative predicates instead. Alsina (1993) claims that the semantic three-place analysis in combination with an argument merger parameter is capable of deriving the grammatical function inventory of different causative predicates. His arguments leave me unconvinced, especially because almost all the logically possible function inventories exist for some causative or other even though Alsina's theory predicts the existence of at most two patterns (for a list of languages with different functional patterns in causatives, see Ackerman and Webelhuth, 1998: Chap. 9). Moreover, as Alsina points out the functional inventory of perception verbs in many languages is similar to that of causatives, even though causatives involve a causer affecting a patient and perception verbs under reasonable assumptions do not (as Alsina himself concludes). This strongly suggests that the function
420
Gert Webelhuth
inventories of predicates cannot be predicted from their semantic properties or their argument structure alone. In the same vein, many of the semantic effects that Alsina claims can only be derived from a three-place analysis of causatives arise with uncontroversially two-place predicates as well. For instance, the contrast between "The president made the generals clean the toilets" and "The president made the toilets be cleaned by the generals" with the underlined expression being perceived as more affected by the causer in many languages that have this alternation, reappears with the English raising-to-object verb believe: "The president believed the generals to have cleaned the toilets" vs "The president believed the toilets to have been cleaned by the generals." Every English informant I have presented this pair of sentences to agrees that in each case the president's belief is more about the underlined expression than the second object. Under Alsina's analysis this is only explicable if the underlined expression in both of these sentences is a semantic argument of the verb believe. This, however, is inconsistent with the empirical fact that this verb takes nonreferential objects, e.g., the existential there ("Kim believed there to have been a riot") or parts of idioms ("Kim believed advantage to have been taken of Sandy"). I therefore see no strong reason to adopt the three-place analysis of causatives and I would dispute the claim that the function inventories of causatives have been shown to follow from their meanings (or argument structures, in Alsina's sense which makes it different from functional structures—I am using the terms "argument structure" and "functional structure" interchangeably). 25 The notation [1:2] for members of the argument structure is interpreted to mean that the grammatical function GF bears the semantic index GO and is realized by the subcategorized element bearing the index [1]. 26 It also needs to be stated whether the demoted agent is realized as an oblique or an indirect object. I suppress this information throughout to simplify. 27 Note that the syntactic schemas must be formulated to ensure that auxiliaries are the categorial heads of their predicates even though they are not the functional-semantic heads. For instance, the finiteness of a phrase correlates with the finiteness of the auxiliary. This is easy to accomplish; see Ackerman and Webelhuth (1998). 28 The idea that the binding theory can refer to the semantics (perhaps in the form of semantically construed argument structures) has previously been employed in Jackendoff (1972), Kiparsky (1987), T. Mohanan (1990), and Alsina (1993), among others. 29 The nodes labeled "Monoclausal Causative" and "Mixed Causative" should therefore be collapsed in (52) and (53). 30 Terms are nonoblique grammatical functions, i.e., subjects, direct and indirect objects. This condition is present to rule out a demoted agent in a passive by-phrase as a possible binder of se stess-. In other languages, this grammatical function can bind anaphors (see, for instance, Marathi as documented in Dalrymple, (1993:13), adding to the evidence that logical subjecthood needs to be referred to in binding theory on occasion and that relative obliqueness of surface grammatical functions does not suffice.
Causatives and Argument Structure
421
REFERENCES Abasheikh, M. I. (1979). The Grammar of Chimwi:ni Causatives. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. (Distributed by University Microfilms.) Ackerman, F. and G. Webelhuth (1998). A Theory of Predicates. CSLI Publications, Stanford: CA. Aissen, J. (1974). The Syntax of Causative Constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. [Published (1979), Garland, New York.] Alsina, A. (1993). Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Anderson, S. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bloch, B. (1947). English verb inflection. Language 23, 399-418. Borsley, R. (1987). Subjects and Complements in HPSG. Technical Report CSLI107-87. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford, CA. Bresnan, J. (1982). The passive in lexical theory. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Bresnan, J. and J. M. Kanerva (1989). Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1-50. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Reidel, Dordrecht. Butt, M. (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Copestake, A. (1992). The Representation of Lexical Semantic Information. Cognitive Science Research Papers 280, University of Sussex. Dalrymple, M. (1993). The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Heinz, W. and J. Matiasek (1994). Argument structure and case assignment in German. In J. Nerbonne et al. (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 199-236. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Hinrichs, E., and T. Nakazawa (1989). Flipped Out: AUX in German. In Papers from the 25th Meeting, 193-102. Chicago Linguistic Society. Hinrichs, E. and T. Nakazawa (1994). Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In J. Nerbonne et al. (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 11-37. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. lida, M., C. Manning, P. O'Neill, and I. Sag (1994). The Lexical Integrity of Japanese Causatives. Presented at the LSA 1994 Annual Meeting. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kathol, A. (1994). Passives without lexical rules. In J. Nerbonne et al. (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. 237-272. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Kathol, A. (1995). Linearization-Based German Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.
422
Gert Webelhuth
Keenan, E. (1976). Toward a universal definition of 'subject.' In C. Li, (ed.), Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York. Kiparsky, P. (1987). Morphology and Grammatical Relations. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Krieger, H.-U. and J. Nerbonne (1993). Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons. In T. Briscoe et al. (eds.), Default Inheritance within Unification-Based Approaches to the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Manning, C. and I. Sag (1995). Dissociations between Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Unpublished manuscript, July 1995, Carnegie Mellon University and Stanford University. Manning, C., I. Sag, and M. lida (1996). The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. In G. Green and R. Levine (eds.), Readings in HPSG. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (To appear.) Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Mohanan, K. P. (1982a). Grammatical relations and anaphora in Malayalam. In A. Marantz and T. Stowell (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 4, 163-190. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Mohanan, K. P. (1982b). Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Mohanan, K. P. (1983). Move NP or lexical rules? Evidence from Malayalam causativization. In L. Levin et al. (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington. Mohanan, T. (1990). Argument Structure in Hindi. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. (Published by the Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA.) Nino, M.-E. (1995). Split Inflection and the Architecture of Grammar. The Case of Finnish Verbal Morphology. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Nordlinger, R. (1995). Split Tense and Imperative Mood Inflection in Wambaya. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. Fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes No. 13. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Reis, M. (1976). Reflexivierung in Deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma. Papiere zur Linguistik 9, 5-82. Riehemann, S. (1993). Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies: A Case Study of Bar-Adjectives in German. M.A. thesis, University of Tubingen. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328-350. Rosen, S. (1990). Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University. Webelhuth, G. (ed.) (1995). Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory. Blackwell, Oxford.
INDEX
Page references followed by n indicate notes.
A
Abasheikh, M. I., 417n, 421 Abbott, B., 361n, 366 Abeille, A., xii, xiii, xvii, 5, 14, 17, 19, 25, 34n, 35n, 36n, 37n, 39, 310n, 311, 319, 320, 323, 341, 361n, 366 Abraham, W., 266n, 267 Abstraction, functional, 274 Accessibility relation, 272, 274, 277-281 Accusatives /za-causative construction, 187, 188, 193-194 with infinitive, 267n Acl verbs, 144 Ackerman, F., 256, 257, 258, 259, 267«, 270, 370, 371, 390, 396, 397, 415, 418n, 419n, 420n, 421 ACLR, see Argument Composition Lexical Rule a-composition, 4, 23 Active-causative types, 398, 415 Causative Construction, Type 1, (Lexical Schema), 400 definition of, 399 Actives, 418n Adjuncts, 361n
in Korean, 217n LP constraints on, 204 multiple, 217n true, 204 Adjunct scrambling, 205 in German, 197 in Korean, 196-205 Adverb phrases, 204, 205 Adversity passive, 213n ADVP, see Adverb phrase Affected agents, 85, 87, 88 Affectedness, xiv, 89, 94-102, 104-105, 108n for Urdu causatives, 96-97 Affixes, 370 inflectional, 340, 352 invisible, 256 pronominal, 6, 7, 34, 303-304 pseudo-affixes, 262n Aff(ixal) synsems, 7, 303 Afterthought expression, 162, 180 Agreement, 9 in French, 25 long-distance, 108n participle, 25 subject-verb, 252-253 in Urdu, 80
423
424 Aissen, J., 3, 5, 19, 39, 39n, 73, 75, 76, 109, 313, 366, 417n, 421 Aktionsart, 95 Albanian, te element, 364n Alphanumeric orderings, 417n Alsina, A., 24, 34n, 35n, 37n, 39, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 101, 103, 105, 107n, 108n, 109, 387, 419n, 420n, 421 Alternation, case, 257 auxiliaries in, 257-258 of dative argument, 256 with (de)emotion auxiliaries, 165, 166, 174-176, 211 in Korean, 175-177 Ambiguity, spurious, 48 A'-movement, xiv A-movement, 211 am preposition (German), 232-233 Analytic predicates, 371, 375, 397, 414, 415 in German, 379-380, 407, 409 in Italian, 383 similarity with synthetic predicates, 394 in syntax, 389 Anaphors, 375 binding domains, 410 binding-theoretic requirements, 411-412, 413 in Chi-Mwi:ni, 381-382, 392-393 in Italian, 417n kendim (Turkish), 384-385, 413 in Malayalam, 378 in Marathi, 420n se stesso (Italian), 383, 411-412, 420n sich (German), 377, 380, 381, 405, 408 Anderson, S., 421 dndik verb (Chi-Mwi:ni), 409 Application, functional, 274 Applicatives, 75, 93, 94 Architecture, multimodal, 276 ARG-S, see Argument structure ARG-ST, see Argument structure Argument attraction, 388 Argument composition, xii-xvi, 79, 93, 217n a-composition, 4, 23 applicability range of, 212-213 and auxiliary verb construction, 160-177 and branching structure, 223-225 c-composition, 4, 23 clitic climbing as, 305-307
Index
concept of, 222 in Dutch, 320 extension of, 257 in French, 3, 320 in German, 121, 123, 126, 129, 144, 146, 167-168 in German third construction, 131-135, 150-151 in German verb clusters, 260, 320 in Italian, 313, 320, 321-323, 347 in Korean, 159-220 lexical rules, 200-202 in long-distance scrambling, 177-205 in Polish, 320 in restructuring verbs, 321-323 in Romance, 93 in third construction, 131-135, 150-151 in verb clusters, 260, 320 Argument Composition Lexical Rule, 205, 321, 325-327, 331, 357, 359 Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule interactions, 325 in Italian tough constructions, 341 Middle si Lexical Rule interactions, 335, 336-340 Argument fusion, 74, 78-79, 90-94, 103, 104, 106, 107n analog to functional control, 92 analog to syntactic control, 74 characterization, 92 in Dutch resultatives, 93 in Italian, 343 parameters, 87-89 properties, 92 rationale for, 84-85 restriction, 92 Argument merger, 75-77, 79 constraining through aspect, 73-113 formal considerations, 89-94 in French, 77 full, 77 in Italian, 77 in Japanese, 77 partial, 77 in Spanish, 77 Argument raising, 92-93 in Dutch, 247-248 in German, 122, 131-135, 147 in third construction, 131-135
Index
Arguments, 76 case marking on, 216n clitic, 304 dative, 256 external, 108n internal, 99-100 licensing of, 94 proper, 223 in third construction, 263n Argument structure, xiii, xiv, 56, 83, 98, 101, 107n, 394 aspect and, 104 Causative Construction, Type 1, (Lexical Schema), 400-401 causatives and, 369-422 combinatory possibilities for, 92-93 complex, 82 concept of, 395, 419n constraint on, 394-395 embedded, 92-93 in French, 4 in German, 51, 56 in Japanese, 391, 393 mapping to f-structure, 90 matrix, 92-93 in monoclausal causatives, 403 passivization and, 105 of Permissive, 91 semantically construed, 420n term, 420n in Turkish, 391-392, 393 valence and, 418n Argument-to-Function Uniqueness, 78 Argument transfer, 93 Asher, N., 40 Aspect, 94-102, 370 and argument structure, 104 clausal, 94 compositional, 94, 95-96, 99 constraining argument merger through, 73-113 in internal arguments, 99-100 lexical, 95-96 roles, 99 tiers, 94 Aspectual inertia, 99 Aspectual light verbs, 85
425 Aspectual verbs, in Italian, 314 Associativity, 274, 276, 279 Mixed Associativity principle, 281, 282, 289, 301 modally controlled, 310n multimodal, 281 structural postulate, 274 a(rgument)-structure, see Argument structure Attribute-Value Matrix, 90 Auger, J., 6, 39 AUX feature, 343 Auxiliary flip construction, 153n in German, xii, 44-49, 58-59, 117-120, 130, 150, 229 Auxiliary-main verb combination, 415 in German, 376 Auxiliary verbs, 144, 370, 386, 394 argument composition and, 160-177 in case alternation, 257-258 as categorial heads, 420n in Chi-Mwi:ni, 408 cz-passives (Korean), 164, 165, 172, 213n, 214n classification of, 253 construction, 191 emotion, 165, 174, 175-177 (de)emotion, 165, 166, 174-176, 211 in French, xii, 361n in German, 377, 379, 401-404, 407 in Italian, 319, 363n, 364n, 383, 410 in Korean, 161-163, 171 in Malayalam, 404 passive, 257-258 passivizable vs nonpassivizable, 213n perfect, 253 selection, 15, 26, 37, 364n in Italian, 313, 315, 342-344, 364n tense, 253, 261n in Dutch, 239-240 in French, 2, 3, 14-17 inversion of, 239-240 in Turkish, 412 valence of, 171, 398, 405, 415 AVM, see Attribute-Value Matrix Axiomatic presentations, 309n
426 B
Baker, K., 49, 63, 71, 225, 267 Baker, M., 74, 77, 93, 109, 386, 417n, 421 Bantu, 101 morphological causatives, 74 unspecified object deletion, 105 Barry, G., 312 Basic verbs, 5, 11, 13, 29 Bayer, J., 125, 154, 154n, 211, 218 Bech, G., xiv, xvii, 116, 120, 133, 150, 152n, 154, 154n, 215n, 218, 223, 237, 265n, 267 Biclausal causatives, 379-382, 405-409, 416n in Chi-Mwi:ni, 380-382, 392-393, 394-395, 408-409 in German, 379-380, 407-408, 409 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal), 398 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 Biclausality, 377, 383, 385, 410, 415 pretheoretical diagnostics of, 372, 373-375 property of, 375 Bierwisch, M., 133, 154, 262n, 267 Binding, 369, 373-378, 380, 382-385, 390 Binding theory, 392-394, 405, 416n, 418n, 420n in biclausal causatives, 408 kendim anaphor (Turkish) requirements, 413 principles, 25 of German reflexives, 381 Principle A (for French), 26 se stesso anaphor (Italian) requirements, 411-412 Bloch, B., 421 Borsley, R., 132, 152n, 154, 179, 218, 263n, 267, 390, 421 Bottom up deduction, 309n Bouma, G., xiii, 6, 35n, 39, 44, 50, 56, 63, 64, 65, 71n, 72, 205, 218, 225, 234, 239, 240, 248, 261n, 265n, 266n, 267, 270, 320, 368 Branching argument composition and, 223-225 binary, 225
Index
flat, 225 left, 224, 225-230, 261n, 262n nonbinary analysis, 48 right, 224, 262n for verbal complex, 147 Bratt, E. O., 36n, 39, 216n, 218 Bresnan, J., xii, xviii, 39, 77, 83, 90, 91, 92, 101, 110, 111, 263n, 268, 397, 416n, 421 Brindisi province, Italy, Salentino of, 356-360 Briscoe, E., 40 Burzio, L., 37n, 40, 322, 364n, 366, 417n, 421 Butt, M., xii, xiv, xvii, 75, 77, 79, 84, 86, 91, 93, 104, 108n, 110, 343, 366, 387, 419n, 421
C Calabrese, A., 347, 349, 350, 353, 356, 364n, 366 Calcagno, M., 362n, 366 Canonical verb clusters, in German, 242-243 Canon(ical) synsems, 7, 10, 13 Cardinaletti, A., 363n, 366 Casadio, C., 305, 307, 311 Case alternation, 257 auxiliaries in, 257-258 of dative argument, 256 with (de)emotion auxiliaries, 165, 166, 174-176, 211 in Korean, 175-177 assignor, 211 lexical, 174, 176 marking on arguments, 216n in Urdu, 104 principle, 174 roles, 418n structural, 174, 176 Case-driven theory, 211 Case Principle (for Korean), 174, 175 Catalan causative constructions, 34n clitics, 304-305 reflexives, 107n
Index
Categorial Grammar, xii base logic, 272-276 clitic climbing accounts, 305 division, 320 division type-shift, 305 Dutch verb raising example, 282-285 French object clitics analysis, 303-307 logics, 272-285 multimodal, xv-xvi, 280-281 product operators logical, 275 structural, 275 structural control, 276-281 Categorial structure, 397 Causation Hierarchy, 99 Causatives, xvi, 94, 227, 287 active-causative type, 415 affected agent, 85 analysis of, 396-413, 418n alternative, 103-105 prerequisites, 385-396 analytically expressed, 394 argument structure, 103, 369-422 biclausal, 369-370, 379-382 analysis of, 405-409, 416n in Chi-Mwi:ni, 380-382, 392-393, 394-395, 408-409 in German, 379-380, 407-408, 409 pretheoretical diagnostics of, 372, 373-375 case marking alternation, 85 in Chichewa, 88 clausality of, 371-375 in composition FAIRE, 19-22, 22-23 construction, xiii, xvi, xvii in composition FAIRE, 19-22, 22-23 in English, 374 in French, 1, 3, 362n with ha (Korean), 184-188, 188-191, 193-194 in Italian, 34n Romance, 1, 34n, 73 subject-to-object raising, 374 Type 1 (Lexical Schema), 400 Type 2 (Chi-Mwi:ni Instantiation), 408 Type 2 (German Instantiation), 407 Type 2 (Lexical Schema), 406 data from, 371-385 in English, 374, 420n
427 in German, 414, 416n Hindi/Urdu morphemes, 85-86 in Italian, 417n in Japanese, 417n Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal), 398 mixed, 369-370, 382-385, 420n analysis of, 409-413 in Italian, 382-383, 410-412 in Turkish, 383-385, 412-413 monoclausal, 369-370, 376-379, 420n analysis of, 399-405 in German, 376-377, 401-403, 405 in Malayalam, 378-379, 400, 401, 403-405 pretheoretical diagnostics of, 372-373 morphologically derived, 394 noncanonical, 393 passivization of, 109n Romance, 77, 109n in Spanish, 75 synthetically expressed, 394 terminology, 371-375 three-place, 78, 88, 103, 104, 419n two-place, 78, 88, 103, 109n type 1 of nulti (Malayalam), 404 of riparare (Italian), 411 of "to open" (Turkish), 413 type 2 of dndik (Chi-Mwi:ni), 409 of waschen (German), 407 unithood of, 369 in Urdu, 74, 85-89, 94-102, 106, 109n Causative Schema, Type 1 (German Instantiation), 401 Causative Schema, Type 1 (Italian Instantiation), 410 Causative Schema, Type 1 (Malayalam Instantiation), 403 Causative Schema, Type 1 (Turkish Instantiation), 412 Causativized form, 108n Cause a-structure, 103, 104 relation, 399 Cause clause, 379
428 Caused-SOA, 399-400, 402, 404, 406-407, 409, 411, 413 Caused clause, 379 Causee, 85, 103, 372, 403 affected, 89 in French, 14, 19 oblique, 104 Causer, 372, 399, 403, 406 CCLR, see Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule c-composition, 4, 23 CELR, see Complement Extraction Lexical Rule Centineo, G., 364n, 366 che element (Italian), 351, 365n Chichewa, causatives, 88 Chi-Mwi:ni, 383, 417n dndik verb, 409 argument structure, 391 causatives, 370 biclausal, 380-383, 392-393, 394-395, 408-409 construction, type 2, 408 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 Chinese, 77 resultatives, 94 Cho, J.-H., 209, 218 Cho, J. O., 169, 218 Chung, C, xiv, 184, 215n, 217n, 218, 218n, 231, 268 Cinque, G., 363n, 366 ci-passives (Korean), 164, 165, 172, 213n, 214n, 215n Classifications default role, 90 intrinsic role, 90 Clausal aspect, 94 Clausality; see also Biclausality; Monoclausality pretheoretical diagnostics for, 371-375 Clause-external scrambling, 160 Clause-final, 140 Clause-initial, 117, 138, 140 Clause-internal scrambling, 160, 211 in Hindi, 210 in Korean, 209 Clause Reduction Analysis, 313 Clauses finite, 355-360 relative, 418n
Index
Clause union, 73, 74, 107, 301 definition of, 301 distribution rule Ku for, 301 in Italian, 326 original RG analysis, 75-76 in Spanish, 75 Clefting, 317 in Spanish, 319 Clitic arguments, 304 Clitic attachment, 289 Clitic climbing in French, 2, 14, 19, 21, 34n, 300-302, 364n as argument composition, 305-307 in Italian, 305, 311n, 322, 327-328, 337-338 as argument composition, 305-307 lexical analysis, 357 and long NP-movement, 334 low, 328-332, 330 restructuring verbs and, 323-328, 330 optional, 35n in Salentino, 314, 347-352, 361 and finite clauses, 355-360 in Spanish, 75, 305, 320 in Standard Italian, 314, 348 Clitic climbing trigger verbs in Italian, 322, 328, 334 in Salentino, 348 Clitic clusters, in Italian, 324 Clitic host, 304 Cliticization, 38n Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 332-333, 339, 348, 362n downstairs in composition FAIRE, 22-23 in French, 36n, 299-300 upstairs, in composition FAIRE, 19-22 diticized-word word types, 7, 10, 13, 16, 33 n(on)s(ubject), 7, 11 su(bject), 7, 11, 12 Clitic order in French, 292-296, 304-305 in Italian, 324, 329 Clitics, 1, 34n; see also Object clitics; Subject clitics bisyllabic, 328-332, 329, 360, 363n in Catalan, 304-305
Index
enclitic, 315 in French, 5-14, 6, 296-302, 303-304 intrinsic, 5, 12-14 loro (Italian), 328-332, 360, 363n middle si (Italian), 335-336 Lexical Rule, 346 monosyllabic, 329, 360 object in French, 271-312 in French causative constructions, 363n proclitic, 315 as pronominal affixes, 6, 303-304 reflexive, in French, 23-33, 308, 362n Romance, 34n split, 328, 332, 360, 363 clitic sort, 362n Clitic trapping, 5 in composition FAIRE, 33 CLTS {} condition, 321 cl-wd, see cliticized-word Coherence field, 133 Coherent constructions, 146-147, 223 in German, 215n, 231, 250 infinitive, 120 Commutativity, 274, 276, 279 Mixed Commutativity principle, 281, 282 modally controlled version, 310n multimodal, 281 structural postulate, 274 Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule, 323, 324, 326, 327, 332-333, 339, 348, 362n Argument Composition Lexical Rule interactions, 325 Complement Extraction Lexical Rule, 56, 61, 230, 362n Complement inheritance, 43, 54 in German verb clusters, 53-55 Complement inheritance verbs, 53 Complement inheritors, 45 Complementizer field, 56 Complementizers che (Italian) as, 351, 365n ka (Salentino) as, 351, 354, 365n ku (Salentino) as, 350, 351, 352, 356 Romance, 356 Complements finite, xiv Linear Precedence constraints on, 321 nonfinite, xiv direct objects in, 254-255
429 indirect objects in, 255-260 subjects in, 252-254 sentential, 177, 194 valence attributes for, 263n Complement verbs, 205 Complex clauses, in Korean, 188-205 Complex event-bundling, 94 Complex NP shift, 317 Complex predicates, xii-xvii, 167-177, 230, 231, 249, 260, 343, 378-388, 405; see also Predicates advantages of, 172 analysis, 81-83 approaches to, 74-79 defining properties of, 81-82 dynamic, 91 extension of, 159-220 formation, 80-85, 314 mixed theory of, 389-390 in syntax, 91 in French, 1-41 structure, 163 with three arguments, 76 Complex projection base, 262n Complex verbs, in Italian, 314, 316, 320, 342, 343, 358 Complex-word sort, 170 Complex-word-structure sort, 170 Composition, 79 FAIRE, 6, 17-23, 33 in French, 1-41 multimodal forms of, 280-281 phrasal, 282 with tense auxiliaries, 14-17 Compositional aspect, 94, 95-96, 99 COMPS feature, xiii, 230, 231 in Dutch, 64 in German, 56, 61, 63, 70n, 71n, 132 specification of, 151 Conative verbs, in Italian, 322 Configurationality, 159 CONS function, 215n Consider constructions, in Dutch and German, 84, 93 Constituency, xv, 225-233 discontinuous, 241 in Dutch verb clusters, 263n in German VPS, 44-50
430 Constituency (Continued) in Italian, 316-317, 319 requirements for, 262n in Spanish, 319 Constraints; see also specific types on argument structure, 394-395 competing, 70n Constructions auxiliary, 191 auxiliary flip, 153n causative, xiii, xvi, xvii, 1, 3 in French, 362n in Italian, 34n Romance, 34n, 73 coherent, 146-147, 223 in German, 215n, 231, 250 coherent infinitive, 120 control, 181-182, 187, 188, 191, 193 in German, 205 /ia-causative, 188-191 in Korean, 181-182, 215n in Tamil, 181 copular, 34 faire-par, 35 genuine unbounded dependency, 218n /za-causative, 184-188 accusative, 187, 188, 193-194 dative, 187, 188, 191 infinitive, in German coherent, 120 incoherent, 116-118, 231 modal verb, 205 optionally coherent, in German, 215n participle inversion, 65 in Dutch, 67-69 passive, xiv permissive, xiv raising, 183-184, 188, 205 raising-to-object, 182-184, 191-193, 252 in Korean, 216n raising-to-subject, in Korean, 215n s-complement, 194-196 separable prefixes, 65 in Dutch, 65-67 serial verb, 365n simple clitic, 288-292 subject-control, 190
Index
subject-to-object raising causative, in English, 374 subject-to-subject raising, 221 third, xiv, 115-157, 263n as coherence phenomenon, 146-147 in Dutch, 50 as focus raising, 154n in German, 116 as special case of vp extraposition, 122-129 tough in English, 340-341, 363n, 364n in French, 341 in Italian, 316, 340-341, 346, 363n unbounded dependency, 218n, 345 vp-complement, 188-194 in Korean, 177, 178-188 V-Projection Raising, 238 CONTENT value, 200, 202 simplification of, 217n Control, 14, 18, 80, 84, 92, 353 Control constructions, 19, 35n, 37n, 191, 193 in German, 205 /la-causative, 188-191 in Korean, 181-182, 2l5n scrambling in, 181-182, 187, 188 in Tamil, 181 Control operators n-ary, 277 unary, 277-279, 310n Control raising, syntactic, 92-94 Control verbs, 14, 255 coherent, 251 in German, 117, 118, 120, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 144, 145, 147, 150, 151, 153n, 223, 255 object-control verbs, 125, 126, 129 subject-control verbs, 115, 116, 124-126, 142-145 incoherent, 251 in Korean, 162, 163, 177, 178, 180-193 Coordination, 291-292, 319, 350 in Italian, 319 in Spanish, 319 Copestake, A., 40, 421 Copular constructions, 34 CSTRUC, see Categorial structure c-structure, 83 Curry-Howard correspondence, 274
431
Index
D
Daliymple, M., 25, 35n, 40, 41, 102, 110, 375, 417n, 420n, 421 Dative argument, 256 Dative controller, 125, 126 Dative ha -causative constructions, 187, 188-191 Dative NP, 302 Dative passives, 256, 258, 267n Dative reflexives, 28 Dative shift, 394 Davies, W., 73, 110 Davis, A., 8, 40 Deemotion auxiliary, 166, 175 Defaults, 35 role classifications, 90 De Hoop, H, 99, 110 De Kuthy-GroBkopf, K., 152n, 155 Deletion, unspecified object, in Bantu, 105 Den Besten, H., 115, 116, 145, 146, 155, 240, 268 De Rooij, J., 71 Descles, J.-P., 25, 38n, 40 Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft fur Kunstliche Intelligenz, 419n Diacritics, 256, 257 Diesing, M., xi, xvii DIR, 56, 58, 68 Directionality, 51, 52 Direct Syntactic Encoding, Principle of, 417n Distant passives, 254 Distributivity rule K, 281, 283, 293-296 rule Ku, 301 rule Kl, 281, 283, 293 rule K2, 281, 283, 293 Division, 305 in Categorial Grammar, 320 DLR approach, 362n Dobrovie-Sorin, C, 40 Domain, 296-300, 302, 304 locality, 279 Domain formation, 251 Domain-inserted objects, 241 Domain-objects, 265n
Domain trees, 250 Domain union, 242 Dominance, 274, 276 Dorre, J., 310n, 311 Downstairs cliticization in composition FAIRE, 22-23 in French, 22-23, 299-300 Dowty, D., 94, 95, 97, 108n, 110, 213n, 219, 298, 311 Drach, E., 243, 268 DTRS value, 200 Durie, M., 94, 110 Dutch, 37, 52, 77, 225, 266n argument composition, 320 argument raisers, 247-248 consider constructions, 84, 93 cross-serial dependencies, xii floated prefixes, 266n GOV feature, 231 infinite verbs, 71n inversion, 239-240 main verbs, 235 nonfinite modals, 248 obliqueness constraint for, 65 participle inversion, 67-69 resultatives, 93 separable prefixes, 65-67, 240 subordinate clauses, 50, 63 third construction, 50, 145 verbal complexes, 121, 244-245, 247-248 verb clusters, 43, 121, 233, 261n constituent structure, 263n word order, 63-69, 234 word order constraints on, 43-72 verb raising, xii, 279, 309n categorial logic example, 282-285 Dynamic complex predicates, 91
E Edmondson, J., 240, 268 Elimination rule, 274 Embedded clause construction, in Korean, 177 Emonds, J., 3, 40, 322, 361n, 366 Emotion auxiliaries, 165, 166, 174-176, 175-177, 211 Encoding, direct syntactic, 417n
432
Engel, U., 243, 268 English, 183, 355, 361n, 365n aspect, affectedness, and licensing of arguments, 94 causatives, 374, 420n domain tree, 250 parallelism with German, 250-251 passivization, 211 raising, 221 subject-to-object, 374 that element, 365n tough constructions, 340-341, 363n, 364n VP extraposition, 153n Equi, 84 Equi verbs, 125, 126, 223 Ergatives, 30 Ergativity, split, 108n Ersatzinfinitiv, 46, 59, 264n, 265n Essential reflexives, 37n Evers, A., 107n, 110, 121, 155, 241, 250, 268 Exceptional Case Marking, 353 Expletives, 418n, 419n Extended X-bar Theory, 387 External arguments, 108n Extraction, 288 Complement Extraction Lexical Rule, 362n Extraposition, 231 EXTRAP feature, 119, 130, 132, 134-137, 140, 150 partial, verbs, 52 verb phrase, 118-122 in English, 153n plus long-distance scrambling, 145 third construction as special case of, 122-129 third construction interactions, 115-157
F
FAIRE composition, 6, 17-23 clitic trapping with, 33 composition causatives and downstairs cliticization in, 22-23 composition causatives and upstairs cliticization in, 19-22
Index
intransitive complement, 19-20 transitive complement, 19-20 faire-par construction, 35 Finite clauses in Salentino, 355-360 in Welsh, 179 Finite verbs in Italian, 315 placement of, 153n Flat structure, 17, 55, 361n Flat verb phrases, 44, 69 Flemish, 265n Flemish dialects, 240 FLIP feature, 46, 47, 57, 60, 235 Flip, 46, 47, 59 auxiliary construction, 153n in German, xii, 44-49, 58-59, 117-120, 130, 150, 229 Floated prefixes, in Dutch, 266n Focus peripheral, 266n raising, 154n Fokusrandprinzip ('principle of peripheral focus'), 266n Fontana, J., 362n, 366 FOOT features, 364n Frame condition, 274, 280 Franconian, 265n Franco-Provencal, 363n Frank, A., 108n, 110, 152n, 153n, 155 Free pronominals, ku element (Salentino) as, 353 French, 1-41, 323, 362n, 363n, 364n argument composition, 320 argument merger, partial, 77 auxiliaries, xii auxiliary verbs, 361n Binding Principle A for, 26 causative constructions, 34n, 362n, 363n clitic climbing, 2, 14, 19, 21, 34n, 300-302, 364n as argument composition, 305-307 ditidzed-word word types, 7, 10 n(on)s(ubject), 7, 11 su(bject), 7, 11, 12 clitic order, 292-296, 304-305
433
Index
clitics intrinsic, 12-14 lexical analysis of, 5-14 object, 271-312 as pronominal affixes, 6, 303-304 subject, 308 word hierarchy, 7 word types, 6-12 composition FAIRE, 6, 17-23 clitic trapping with, 33 composition with tense auxiliaries, 14-17 downstairs cliticization, 36n, 299-300 inflectional word types, 7, 8 LEXEME word types, 7, 8-9 Non-Constituent Coordination, 319 object clitics, 296-302 analyses, 303-307 data, 285-288 deductive account of, 271-312 order, 287-288, 292-296 as pronominal affixes, 303-304 properties of, 285-288 simple clitic constructions, 288-292 participle agreement, 25 plain-word word types, 7 pronouns strong form, 285 weak form, 285 (CLITIC-)REALIZATION word types, 7, 9 reflexives, 308 reflexive verbs, 23-33 subject clitics, 308 tough constructions, 341 f-structure, see Functional structure Functional abstraction, 274 Functional application, 274 Functional control, 92 Functional heads, 418n Functional Lexicalism, 397, 409 Principle of, 387, 388, 390 Functional structure, xii, 82, 83, 101, 108n; see also Argument structure complex, 82 concept of, 419n mapping from a-structure to, 90 OBJg at, 102 term, 420n
Function-Argument Biuniqueness, 77-78, 106 Principle of, 77 Function composition, xii
G
Gap, 7, 10, 35 Gavarro, A., 277, 304, 312 GB, see Government-Binding Theory Geach, P., xii, xvii Geerts, G., 66, 67, 71 GeilfuB, J., 116, 148, 155 Gentzen sequent presentations, 309n Gerdemann, D., 167, 219 German, 35n, 77, 197, 212, 215 accusative with infinitive, 267n adjunct scrambling, 197 am preposition, 232-233 argument composition, 167-168 auxiliary flip, xii, 44-49, 58-59, 117-120, 130, 150, 229 canonical verb clusters, 242-243 causatives, 370, 386, 414, 416n biclausal, 379-380, 399, 407-408, 409 Construction, Type 2, 407 monoclausal, 376-377, 399, 400, 401-403, 405 Schema, Type 1, 401 coherent constructions, 215n, 223, 231, 250 consider constructions, 84, 93 control verbs, 153n, 205 domain tree, 250 Ersatzinfinitiv, 46, 59, 264n, 265n finite verb placement, 153n incoherent infinitive constructions, 116-118, 231 long-distance passivization, 206 Mittelfeld, 117, 121, 152n branching, 225 NP complements in, I54n scrambling in, 130-131, 145-146 verb clusters, 225, 261n modal verbs, 205, 253
434 German (Continued) nonfinite complements, 251-252 Oberfeldumstellung, xii, 44, 229, 234, 236-238, 264n, 265n order in, 263n optionally coherent constructions, 215n parallelism with English, 250-251 partial vp fronting, 61-63 passives, 144 ACC-NOM, 258, 259 raising as S-embedding, 250 Raising-to-Object type constructions, 252 raising verb constructions, 205 raising verbs, 222-223 reflexives, 381 third construction, xiv, xv, 115-157 third construction triggering verbs, 153n topicalization, 152n verbal complexes, 93, 225, 229-230 constituency, 227 formation, 232 linearization of, 243-244, 245-247 order variation, 228-229 verb clusters, xii, 79, 121, 233, 261n, 388 argument composition, 260, 320 order domain approach to, 260 verbal elements, 262n word order, 51-63, 69, 234 word order constraints on, 43-72 verb phrase extraposition, 115-157 verb phrases, 44-50 VFORM feature, 152n Zwischenstellung ('intermediate placement'), 50, 239 Germanic languages noun incorporation, 109n verbal complexes, 212 verb clusters, 205 Geuder, W., 108n, 110 Gibson, J., 73, 110 Girard, J.-Y., 271, 311 Godard, D., xii, xiii, xvii, 5, 14, 25, 34n, 35n, 38n, 39, 40, 41, 311, 319, 320, 361n, 366 Governee, 57, 170 Government, 51, 228 direction of, 55 in German verb clusters, 55-60 status, 262n
Index Government-Binding Theory, xiv, 386, 418n A-movement approach, 211 in Romance causatives, 77 Governor, 57, 60 Governor constraints, 57, 65 GOV feature, 170, 215n for Dutch, 231 for Korean, 231 GPSG, 309n, 386, 418n Grammar logic, 271, 284, 305 Grammatical function, 373, 375, 404-406, 408, 411, 413 change, 385, 386, 395 features, 90 classification of, 90 function of, 91 in German, 376, 380 in Malayalam, 378 in Turkish, 384 Greek, na element, 364n, 365n Grevisse, M., 23, 40 Grimshaw, J., 23, 25, 37n, 40, 74, 75, 77, 79, 92, 94, 98, 99, 108n, 110, 111, 363n, 366 Grover, C, 363n, 366 Guentcheva, Z., 40 G(O)V(ERN)OR feature, 235, 243, 246, 247, 264n in Dutch, 63, 66, 68 in German, 57, 58, 59, 60
H
ha -causative constructions (Korean), 184-188 accusative, 186-187, 188, 193-194 control, 188-191 dative, 187, 188-191 Haegeman, L., 212, 219 Haeseryn, W., 71 Haider, H., xii, xvii, 116, 152n, 155, 262n, 268 Hale, K., 83, 111, 159, 168, 219 Halvorsen, P.-K., 102, 111 HAUPTVERBCOMPLEX 'main verb complex,' 133 Head adjunction, 282, 283, 284, 289, 309 Head-adjunct-struc, 200 Head clusters, xi
435
Index
Head-Complement ID Schema, 132, 133 Head-complement schema in Dutch, 43 in German, 43-45, 48, 50-54, 60, 61 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, xii, xiv, 214n, 221, 311n, 313, 386, 387-388, 418n Binding Principles, 25 in Dutch, 43 in French, 4, 10, 303-307 in German, 43, 115-157, 167-168 immediate precedence, 266n impersonal passives, 267n ku element analysis, 352-355 mixed theory of predicate formation, 389-390 order domains, 241 Raising-to-Object constructions, 252 structural case, 174 subject-verb agreement, 252-253 word order theories, 153n Head Feature Principle, 70n, 309n Head-filler structures, 63 Head-finality in Korean, 192 LP constraints on, 218n Heads, 387 functional, 418n Head-Subject-Complement-Adjunct Schema, 197, 200 Head-Subject-Complement Schema, 168, 178 Head-Subject Schema, 178 Head-to-head movement, 74 HEAD values, 266n HEADWORD feature, 170 Heinz, W., 173, 219, 257, 268, 388, 421 Hepple, M, 277, 279, 311, 312 HFP, see Head Feature Principle Higginbotham, J., 90, 111 Higher order type, 288, 303-307 Hindi, 77, 107n causative morphemes, 85-86 long-distance scrambling, 210, 218n N-V complex predicates, 80 Hinrichs, E., xii, xiv, xv, xviii, 35n, 40, 43, 44, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 70n, 71, 79, 93, 111, 120, 121, 122, 132, 133, 138,
152n, 153n, 155, 160, 167, 168, 205, 214n, 219, 222, 223, 231, 237, 238, 242, 26ln, 262n, 263n, 264n, 265n, 268, 320, 367, 387, 388, 421 Hohle, T. N., 140, 153n, 155, 243, 254, 268, 362n, 367 Hong, K-S., 216n, 219 HPSG, see Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Hyman, L. M., 3, 17, 40 Hypothetical reasoning, 288, 303, 306
I Idiomatic predicates, 418n Idioms, 372, 419n ID schemas, 153n features sensitive to, 131-132 Head-Complement ID Schema, 132, 133 Partial VP Expansion ID Schema, 148, 149 in third construction, 131-135 Verbal-Complex ID Schema, 132, 133, 139, 231 lida, M., 72, 227, 268, 394, 417n, 421, 422 Immediate precedence, 57, 266n Impersonal passives, 267n long, 142-143 short-distance, 141-142, 143 Impersonal Subject Lexical Rule, 38n Impersonal verbs, 26, 37 Inchoative reflexives, 30 Inclusion principle, 280-281, 289 Incoherent infinitive construction in German, 116-118, 120, 231 Incompleteness, 272 Incorporation, 387, 417n Index Interpretation Principle, 390-396, 409 Infinitives accusative with, 267n constructions coherent, xiv, 120 in German, xiv, 116-118, 120, 231 incoherent, xiv, 116-118, 120 in Dutch, 71n morphological, 262n Inflection, 7
436 Inflectional affixes, ku element (Salentino) as, 351, 352 Inflectional types, 7, 8 Informational identity, 221 Information structure, 397 Causative Construction, Type 1, (Lexical Schema), 400-401 Ingestives, 104-105 Inherent reflexives, 37n INHERJOC feature, 345, 346 Inner zone, see I-zone Insertion, domain, 241 Interaction principle, 281, 289 Internal arguments, 99-100 Interpretive Principle, 203, 217n Intrinsic clitics, 5, 12-14, 22 Intrinsic reflexives, 26-27, 37n Intrinsic roles, classification of, 90, 101 revised, 101 Introduction rule, 274 Inuit, causatives, 109n [INV +], 138 Inversion, 234 in Dutch, 239-240 Invisible affixes, 256 ISTRUC, see Information structure Italian, 37, 417n anaphors, 417n argument merger, full, 77 aspectual verbs, 314 auxiliary selection, 342-344, 364n causatives, 370, 417n constructions, 34n Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 mixed, 382-383, 410-412 Schema, Type 1 (Italian Instantiation), 410 che element, 365n clause union effects, 326 clitic climbing, 305, 311n, 314, 322-328, 330, 334, 337-338, 357 clitic climbing trigger verbs, 322, 328, 334 clitic clusters, 324 clitic order, 324, 329 clitics bisyllabic low, 328-332, 360, 361n middle si, 335-336 object, 308 complementizers, 356
Index conative verbs, 322 coordination, 319 long NP-movement, 313, 315, 345-346 analysis of, 336-340, 360 restructuring verbs and, 333-340 loro, 363n middle si, 335-336, 360 modal verbs, 314 motion verbs, 314 Non-Constituent Coordination, 319-320 object clitics, 308 restructuring verbs, 313-368 basic facts, 314-316 classes of, 314 lexical analysis of, 320-344 syntactic structure, 316-320 riparare verb, 411 se stesso anaphor, 383, 411-412, 420n tough constructions, 316, 340-341, 346, 363n verb structures, 35n I-zone, 51, 60, 61 complements, 71n in German verb clusters, 53-55
J
Jaberg, K., 365n, 367 Jackendoff, R., 75, 77, 108n, 111, 420n, 421 Japanese, 218n adversity passive, 213n amelioration of weak crossover effects, 211 argument merger, 77 argument structure, 391, 393 causatives, 109n, 417n passive construction, 213n long-distance, 206 scrambling, 211 long-distance, 211-212 sum, 77, 93 verbal complexes, 227 Jespersen, O., 84, 111 Johnson, M., xii, xviii, 266n, 268 Joshi, S., 74, 85, 87, 88, 92, 94, 95, 103, 109 Jud, J., 365n, 367 Jurafsky, D., 32, 40
437
Index
K
Kachru, Y., 85, 111 ka element (Salentino), 351, 352, 354, 365n Kanerva, J., 90, 101, 110 Kanerva, J. M., 416n, 421 Kang, B. M., 184, 185, 219 Kaplan, R., xii, xviii, 92, 95, 111, 268 Kasper, R., 197, 217n, 219 Kasper, R. T., 264n, 269 Kathol, A., xv, xviii, 55, 57, 60, 63, 70n, 72, 144, 153n, 156, 172, 219, 241, 243, 252, 256, 257, 262n, 263n, 265n, 266n, 267n, 269, 304, 311, 388, 421 Kayne, R., 3, 23, 39, 39n, 40, 363n, 367 Keenan, E., 395, 422 kendim anaphor (Turkish), 413 Kernel sentence, xi Keyser, S. J., 83, 111 Kiparsky, P., 75, 90, 98, 111, 416n, 420n, 422 Kiss, T., 35n, 40, 72, 146-147, 152n, 153n, 154n, 156, 167, 205, 206, 219, 222, 223, 224, 231, 252, 254, 257, 267n, 269 Koenig, J.-P., 19, 25, 32, 35n, 36n, 37n, 38n, 40 KOHAERENZFELD 'coherence field,' 133 Komplexe Projectionsbasis ('complex projection base'), 262n Korean, 159 adjuncts, 217n adjunct scrambling, 196-205 argument composition, 159-220 auxiliary verbs, 161-163, 171 case alternation phenomenon, 175-177 Case Principle for, 174, 175 d-passive, 164, 165, 172, 213n, 214n, 215n complex clauses, 188-205 control construction, 181-182 control verbs, 189, 215n embedded clause construction, 177 GOV feature, 231 ha -causative constructions, 184-188 accusative, 186-187, 188, 193-194 control, 188-191 dative, 187, 188-191, 191 head-final property, 192 Head-Subject-Complement-Adjunct Schema, 197 lexical rules, 195-196
linear precedence constraints, 192-193 nominative case, 216n object-control verbs, 215n passive construction, 213n passivization, 164 long-distance, 206-209 raising construction, 180-181 raising-to-object construction, 216n raising-to-subject construction, 215n raising verbs, 193 s-complement constructions, 194-196 scrambling, 211 clause-internal, 209 long-distance, 159-220 verbal complexes, 159, 160, 170, 211 constituency of, 227 properties of, 215n vp-complement constructions, 177, 178-188, 188-194 VP constituents, 178-181 weak crossover effects, 218n amelioration of, 209-210, 211-212 Kornfilt, J., 125, 154, 154n, 211, 218 Kraak, E., xv, 364n, 367 Krieger, H.-U., 397, 422 Krifka, M., 74, 89, 94, 95, 96, 111 Kripke frame, 272, 277 Kroch, A. S., 116, 157, 232, 265n, 269 ku element (Salentino), 349-352, 364n, 365n in Brindisi and Taranto, 356, 357, 359 equivalents in Balkan languages, 365n equivalents in other languages, 364n HPSG analysis of, 352-355 properties of, 349, 350, 351, 352 Kuh, H., 179, 181, 219 Kupsc, A., 320, 368 Kurtonina, N., 277, 279, 311 Kvam, S., 148, 156
L Lambda calculus, 274 Lambek, J., xii, xviii, 271, 311 Lambek systems, xv, 276 extension of, 280 nonassociative, 274 Lambek-van Benthem calculus, 274 Lamping, J., 110 Lascarides, A., 35n, 40
438 Latin, 349 Lee, Y-S., 211, 219 Legendre, G., 19, 40 Leslie, N., 312 Levine, D., 269 LEX-DTRS attribute, 170 Lexeme, 401, 402 Lexeme selection, 226 LEXEME word type, 7, 8-9, 28 LEX feature, 226, 227, 229-230, 262n in German, 48, 61, 133 in Italian, 321 Lexical analysis of French clitics, 5-14 of Italian clitic climbing, 357 of Italian long NP-movement, 336-340, 360 of Italian restructuring verbs, 320-344 alternative, 344-347 Lexical aspect, 95-96 Lexical case, 174, 176 Lexical entries, 362n, 397 Lexical-Functional Grammar, xii, 73, 95, 101, 221, 263, 386, 387 in French, 35n in Italian, 343 Linking Theory, 98 Principle of Function-Argument Biuniqueness, 77 Lexicalism Functional Lexicalism, 397, 409 Principle of, 387, 388, 390 Morphological Lexicalism, 409 Principle of, 386-387, 417n strong form of, 386-390 Lexical motivation, 257 Lexical rules, 6, 28 Argument Composition Lexical Rule for Italian, 321, 325-327, 331, 335-341, 357, 359 for Korean, 200-202, 205 Causative Construction, Type 1 schema, 400-401 Complement Cliticization Lexical Rule, 323-327, 332-333, 339, 348, 362n Complement Extraction Lexical Rule, 56, 61, 230, 362n
Index
features sensitive to, 131-132 formalization of, 361n for Korean, 195-196 for long-distance scrambling, 216n Long Passive Lexical Rule, 143-144 Medio-Passive Lexical Rule, 31, 32 Middle si Lexical Rule, 335-336, 336-340, 346 for object clitics, 345, 435 for passives, 207-209, 255, 257 System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 System of Causatives (Universal), 398 Third Construction Lexical Rule, 126, 130, 135-138, 148, 151 preliminary version, 123-124 Lexical semantics, 77-78 Lexical types, recursive, 394 Lexical verbal complements, 332 Lexicon, 388-389 LFG, see Lexical-Functional Grammar Li, C, 213n, 219 Li, Y., 77, 94, 95, 111 Liberation metarule, 216n Liberation principle, 2\6n Light verbs, 83-85 aspectual, 85 incomplete predicate, 84 Linear assignments, 266n Linearization, 233-248 direct, 249 in Dutch, 244-245, 247-248 in German, 129, 243-244, 245-247 Linearization-based theory, 248-260 Linear Logic, xv, 271, 278 Linear order, xv Linear precedence, xiii, 51, 119, 234 constraints, 264n, 266n on adjuncts, 204 on complements, 321, 330, 331, 332 in German, 46, 51, 54 governor, 57, 243 on head-finality, 218n in Korean, 168, 192-193 zone, 54
439
Index
immediate, 246 principles, 51 rules, 138-140, 153n Linguistic composition, multimodal, 280-281 Linking, 89-92, 97-102, 100-102 principles of, 75 and semantics, 106 thematic hierarchy for, 90 theory of, 75, 78, 105, 107, 108 LISP, 215n List concatenation, 35n Locality domains, 279 Locality Principle, 166, 167, 175 definition of, 214n Logic categorial, 272-285 feature, 308 grammar, 271, 284, 305 linear, xv, 271, 278 modal, 272, 278 resource-conscious, xv, 271 rules of, 308 Logical operators, 275, 279, 293 Long-distance agreement, 108n Long-distance passives, 154n, 160, 206 Long-distance passivization in German, 206 in Japanese, 206 in Korean, 206-209 Long-distance scrambling, 154n, 177-205 in Hindi, 210, 218n in Japanese, 211-212 in Korean, 159-220 lexical rules for, 216n theoretical predictions, 206-210 vp extraposition plus, 145 Long NT-movement, in Italian, 313, 315, 345-346 analysis of, 336-340, 360 restructuring verbs and, 333-340 Long Passive Lexical Rule, 143-144 Long passives, 140-144, 254 personal and impersonal, 142-143 low (Italian), 328-332, 360, 361n, 363n Linear Precedence Constraint 1, 330 Linear Precedence Constraint 2, 330 LP, see Linear precedence ban, see LEXEME
M
Mahajan, A., 210, 219 Main verbs, 257-258 in German, 235 nonfinite classification of, 235 in Dutch, 235 vs passive verbs, 257-258 Malayalam, 78, 376, 417n causatives, 370, 382, 386, 408 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 monoclausal, 378-379, 383, 400-405 Schema, Type 1, 403 causativized unergatives, 88 nulli verb, 404 Malouf, R., 39 Manandhar, S., 310n, 311 Manning, C, 26, 40, 56, 72, 75, 79, 80, 111, 268, 391, 392, 393, 394, 417n, 418n, 421, 422 Manzini, M. R., 363n, 367, 368 Mapping principles, 75 MA principle, see Mixed Associativity principle Marandin, J.-M., 37n, 40 Marantz, A., 74, 111, 417n, 422 Marathi anaphors, 420n morphological causatives, 74 reflexives, 375 Markers, 352, 354, 359 Marking Principle, 354 Masica, C., 85, 111 Matiasek, J., 173, 219, 257, 268, 388, 421 Matrix verbs, 205 Matsumoto, Y., 93, 112 Mchombo, S., 90, 101, 105, 109 MC principle, see Mixed Commutativity principle Medio-Passive Lexical Rule, 31, 32 modification, 39 Medio-passives, 23, 30-32 Melillo, M., 350, 367 Melis, L., 37n, 40 Mester, A., 77, 79, 93, 111 Meurers, W. D., 50, 72, 239, 262n, 263n, 269, 362n, 367 Middle-se, 30
440 Middle si Lexical Rule, 335-336, 346 Argument Composition Lexical Rule interactions, 335, 336-340 Middle verb forms, 363n Middle voice, 370, 394 MIDSI-LR, see Middle si Lexical Rule Miller, P. H., xvi, xviii, 5, 6, 10, 18, 19, 24, 25, 33, 35n, 39, 40, 41, 303, 307, 310n, 311, 312, 320, 362n, 364n, 366, 367 Milner, J.-C, 35n, 41 Minimalist Program, 386 Mirror Principle, 74 Mittelfeld, 56, 70n, 117, 121, 152n branching structure of, 225 NP complements in, 154n scrambling in, 130-131, 145-146 verb clusters, 225, 261n Mixed Associativity principle, 282, 289, 301 Mixed causatives, 382-385, 409-413, 420n false positive, 410 in Italian, 382-384, 410-412 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal), 398 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 in Turkish, 383-385, 412-413 Mixed Commutativity principle, 281, 282 Mixed predicates, 389 Mixed theory of predicate formation, 389-390 Miyagawa, S., 211, 220 Modals nonfinite, 248 passives, 255 Modal verbs constructions in German, 205 in German, 253 in Italian, 314 MOD value, 200, 217n Mohanan, K. P., 84, 112, 417n, 422 Mohanan, T., 75, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 108n, 112, 419n, 420n, 422 Monachesi, P., xii, xvi, xviii, 5, 6, 34n, 35n, 41, 79, 93, 112, 307, 311n, 312, 320, 323, 330, 335, 344, 355, 361n, 362n, 363n, 364n, 365n, 367 Monoclausal causatives, 376-379, 399-405, 420n in German, 376-377, 400, 401-403, 405
Index
Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal), 398 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 in Malayalam, 378-379, 400, 401, 403-405 Monoclausaliry, 371, 382-385, 398, 410, 412, 415 pretheoretical diagnostics of, 372-373 property of, 375 Moore, J., 34n, 35n, 41, 319, 361n, 367 Moortgat, M., xii, xv, xviii, 271, 277, 279, 282, 309n, 311, 312, 320, 367 Moot, R., 291, 312 Morin, J.-Y., 19, 41 Morphological causatives, 394 in Bantu, 74 in Marathi, 74 Morphological changes, 386 Morphological infinitive, 262n Morphological Lexicalism, 409 Principle of, 386-387, 417n Morphological units, 386 Morphology, 303, 386 perfective, 108n template, 324 Morrill, G., 277, 279, 304, 309n, 310n, 312 Moshi, L., 90, 101, 110 Motion verbs, in Italian, 314 Move Alpha, 385 Miiller, S., 71n, 72, 262n, 269
N na element (Greek), 364n, 365n Nagai, N., 206, 220 Nakazawa, T., xii, xiv, xv, xviii, 35n, 40, 43, 44, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 70n, 71, 79, 93, 111, 121, 122, 132, 133, 138, 152n, 153n, 155, 160, 167, 168, 205, 214n, 219, 222, 223, 231, 237, 238, 242, 261n, 262n, 263n, 264n, 265n, 268, 320, 367, 387, 388, 421 Napoli, D., 319, 322, 361n, 367 Natural deduction format, 309n Neeleman; A., 75, 77, 84, 92, 93, 112 Negation, 351 Nerbonne, J., 44, 48, 61, 72, 152n, 156, 230, 262n, 269, 397, 422
441
Index
Nespor, M., 363n, 368 Netter, K., 71ra, 72, 152n, 153n, 156 Nino, M.-E., 387, 422 Nishida, C, xvi, xviii, 277, 305, 307, 312, 320, 368 NL, see Nonassociative Lambek calculus NLp, see Nonassociative Lambek Permutation No, Y., 163, 169, 172, 184, 214n, 220 Nominatives passives, 267n in Urdu, 104, 108n Nonassociative Lambek calculus, 274 Noncanonical causatives, 393 Noncan(onical) synsems, 1 Non-Constituent Coordination in French, 319 in Italian, 319-320 Nonfinite clauses, in Welsh, 179 Nonfinite complements direct objects in, 254-255 in German, 251-252 indirect objects in, 255-260 subjects in, 252-254 Nonlocal Feature Principle, 70n, 313, 320, 344, 345 Nonlocal features, 320, 347, 360-361, 364n Nonphrase sort, 170 complex-word subsort, 170 word subsort, 170 Nordlinger, R., 387, 422 Normalization of proofs, 306 Noun incorporation, 75 in Germanic and West Greenlandic, 109n Noun phrase complex shift, 317 dative, 302 long movement analysis of, 336-340, 360 in Italian, 313, 315, 333-340, 345-346, 360 restructuring verbs and, 333-340 vpi-internal, 302 Noun phrase complements, in Mittelfeld, 154n Noun-verb complex predicates, 80 NP, see Noun phrase NPCOMP feature, 133, 134, 139, 148, 226 in German, 45, 47, 48, 50, 60, 61, 122, 132 nulli verb (Malayalan), 404
O
Oberfeld, 238 Oberfeldumstellung, xii, 44, 229, 234, 236-238, 265n Ersatzinfinitiu and, 264n order in, 263n OBJ, 90, 101, 102, 105, 106 OBJo, 90, 101, 102, 105, 106 O B J b e n e f i c i a c y , 101 OBJgo, 101
Object causee, 103 Object clitics; see also Clitics in French, 296-302, 363n analyses, 303-307 data, 285-288 deductive account of, 271-312 order, 287-288, 292-296 as pronominal affixes, 303-304 properties of, 285-288 simple constructions, 288-292 in French causative constructions, 363n in Italian, 308 Lexical Rule for Object Clitics, 345 Romance, 308 Object-control verbs, 125, 126 in Korean, 215n Object position, 37n Objects direct, 254-255 indirect, 255-260 raising, 182-184 in Korean, 216n scrambling in, 191-193 raising-to-object constructions, 182-184 in Korean, 216n scrambling in, 191-193 unspecified, 105-106 deletion for Bantu, 105 Object sharing, 93 OBL0, 90
Oblique causee, 104 Obliqueness, 44, 52, 64, 70n, 416n constraint for Dutch, 65 o-command, 218n Oehrle, R., xii, xviii, 277, 279, 282, 309n, 312 O'Neill, P., 268, 421 Optionally coherent construction, in German, 215n
442 Order domains, 241 in German, 260 insertion, 241 union, 242 Outer zone, see O-zone Overgeneration, 281, 282, 298, 305, 311 O-zone, 51, 60, 63 complements, 64, 71n
P PAGE grammar, 419n Partial extraposition, 50, 52 Partial verb phrases, 44 derivation of, 52 fronting of, xiii, 231, 262n in German, 44, 48, 52, 61-63, 69 Partial VP Expansion ID Schema, 148, 149 Participle agreement, in French, 25 Participle inversion, 65 in Dutch, 67-69 Passives, 34n, 93, 94, 105-106, 258, 259, 373, 418n adversity, 213n auxiliaries, 257-258 d-auxiliary (Korean), 164, 165, 172, 213n, 214n construction of, xiv, 213n dative, 256, 258 DAT-NOM, 267n distant, 254 in German, 144 impersonal, 232, 267n long, 142-143 short-distance, 141-142, 143 in Japanese, 213n in Korean, 213n lexical rules for, 207-209, 255, 257 long, 140-144, 254 Lexical Rule, 143-144 long-distance, 154n, 160, 206 modal, 255 personal long, 142-143 short-distance, 141-142, 143 recipient, 256 remote, 154n short-distance, 144 verbs, 257-258
Index
Passivizable auxiliaries, 213n Passivization, 105, 109n in Chi-Mwi:ni, 381 in English, 211 in German, 206 in Japanese, 206 in Korean, 164, 206-209 long-distance, 206-209 Patient, 372 Patientlike roles, 101 Perception verbs, 287, 302 Perfective morphology, 108n Peripheral focus, principle of, 266n Perlmutter, D., 3, 5, 19, 37n, 39, 39n, 41, 73, 75, 76, 109, 313, 366 Permissives, 91 construction, xiv in Urdu, 74, 75, 79, 80-82, 84 Permutation, 305 Personal passives long, 142-143 short-distance, 141-142, 143 Peters, S., 268 Phrasal category, 70n Phrasal composition, 282 normal mode, 289 stronger mode, 289 Phrasal selection, 226 Phrase sort, 170 Phrase Structure Grammar, 206-207 Pied-piping, 316-317 Plain-word word types, 7, 9, 13, 16 Polish, argument composition, 320 Pollard, C, xii, xviii, 4, 25, 41, 52, 70n, 72, 144, 148, 152n, 153n, 154n, 156, 166, 173, 183, 188, 200, 214n, 217n, 218n, 220, 221, 225, 232, 252, 255, 262n, 263n, 267n, 269, 313, 344, 352, 354, 362n, 368, 390, 396, 397, 416n, 422 PP complement, 339 Precedence, 274, 276; see also Linear precedence immediate, 57, 266n in verb cluster, 244 PRED feature, 82
443
Index
Predicates; see also Complex predicates active-causative type, 415 analytic, 371, 375, 397, 414, 415 in German, 379-380, 407, 409 in Italian, 383 similarity with synthetic predicates, 394 in syntax, 389 idiomatic, 418n impersonal, 222 mixed, 389 modification, 99 raising, 261n synthetic, 371, 375, 397, 415 in Chi-Mwi:ni, 380-382, 409 in lexicon, 389 similarity with analytic predicates, 394 unmarked, 419n Prefixes in Dutch, 65-67, 240, 266n floated, 266n separable, 65-67, 69, 232, 240 Prefix + verb combinations, in West Germanic, 240 Principle M, 74 Pro-drop, 56, 396 Progressives, 232 Projection Principle, 77 Pronominal affixes, 7, 34 clitics as, 303-304 in French, 6, 303-304 Pronominals, free, ku element (Salentino) as, 353 Pronouns, in French strong form, 285 weak form, 285 Proofs, 274 normalization of, 306, 307 Proto-roles, 97-98 Prototype, 395 Przepiorkowski, A., 320, 368 Pseudo-affixes, 262n Pseudo-raising, 211, 212 Pullum, G., 172, 216n, 220, 303, 312
Q Questions, 418n
R Raising, 84, 92, 93, 106, 205, 211, 212, 261n constructions in English, 221 in Korean, 180-181 scrambling in, 183-184, 188 in English, 211 pseudo-raising, 211, 212 right node, 317, 319, 361n subject-to-subject, 221 verb, in Dutch, 279, 282-285 verb projection, 212 V-projection, 238, 265n Raising-to-object constructions, 373, 374, 379, 380, 381, 383, 406, 416n in German, 252 in Korean, 182-188, 191-193, 216n scrambling in, 191-193 Raising-to-subject construction, in Korean, 215n Raising verbs, 418n, 419n constructions in German, 205 in French, 14 in German, 125, 205, 222-223, 250, 251-253 in Korean, 193 in nonfinite complements, 252 Rambow, O., 93, 112, 116, 152n, 156 Ramchand, G., 95, 99, 105, 109n, 112 Raposo, E., 73, 110 (CLITIC-)REALIZATION words, 6, 7, 9 Reanalysis, 212, 250 Reape, M., xv, xviii, 56, 72, 153n, 156, 241, 242, 248, 252, 257, 269 Recipient passives, 256 Recursive lexical types, 394 Recursive x0 structures, 262n Reduced thematic hierarchy, 98 Reduced verbs, 5, 11, 13, 29 Reflexives, 377-379, 394, 403 in Catalan, 107n classes of, 23 dative, 28 in French, 5, 22, 308 in French causative constructions, 362n
Index
444
Reflexives (Continued) in German, 381 intrinsic, 23 in Marathi, 375 medio-passives, 23, 30-32 true, 23 Reflexive verbs essential, 37n in French, 23-33 inherent, 37n intrinsic, 26-27, 37n true, 27-30, 37n Reflexivity, 273, 279, 298 Reis, M., 265n, 270, 376, 422 Reis' Generalization, 377, 403, 416n Relational Grammar, xi, 73, 107n Clause Union, 74, 75-76 Relative clauses, 418n Remnant topicalization, 262n Remote passive, 154n Rentier, G. M., xii, xviii, 227, 231, 234, 261n, 270, 320, 368 Residuation, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 280 Resource-conscious logic, xv, 271 Resource management, 280, 288, 307 rules, 309 Restructuring, 316 Restructuring Rule, 313 Restructuring verbs auxiliary selection of, 364n in Italian, 313-368 alternative analysis of, 344-347 basic facts, 314-316 classes of, 314 lexical analysis of, 320-344 structures, 318 syntactic structure, 316-320 Romance, 93 in Salentino, 347-360, 361 Resultatives, in Chinese, 94 RG, see Relational Grammar Richter, F., 153n, 157 Riehemann, S., 397, 422 Right branching, 224, 227, 262n Right node raising, 317, 361n in Spanish, 319 riparare verb (Italian), 411 Ritter, E., 94, 95, 112 Rizzi, L., 35n, 41, 313, 314, 316, 322, 340, 360, 361n, 364n, 368
RNR, see Right node raising Roles patientlike, 101 proto-roles, 97-98 thematic, 97-98, 108n classification of, 101 hierarchy, 90, 99 0-role, 74 association, 212-213 types, 95 Romance languages causatives, 74, 109n constructions, 34n, 73 Government-Binding approach to, 77 three-place, 78 two-place, 78 clitics, 34n, 308 complementizers, 356 complex predicates, 79, 80, 91 object clitics, 308 restructuring verbs, 79, 93 Rosch, E., 395, 422 Rosch, S., 422 Rosen, C., 73, 110 Rosen, S., 75, 77, 94, 95, 112, 417n, 422 Rouveret, A., 3, 36n, 39, 39n, 41 Rule K, 293-296 Rule Ku, 301 Rule Kl, 281, 283, 293 Rule K2, 281, 283, 293 Rumanian, sd element, 364n Rutten, J., 115, 116, 145, 146, 155 Ruwet, N., 37n, 41 Ryu, B-R., 167, 220
S sd (Rumanian), 364n Sag, I., xii, xiii, xvi, xviii, 4, 5, 6, 10, 24, 25, 33, 34n, 35n, 38n, 39, 40, 41, 52, 56, 70n, 72, 75, 79, 111, 153n, 154n, 156, 166, 183, 188, 200, 214n, 217n, 218n, 220, 221, 252, 255, 263n, 268, 269, 303, 307, 310n, 311, 312, 313, 320, 344, 352, 354, 362n, 365n, 366, 367, 368, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 396, 397, 416n, 418n, 421, 422 Sailer, M., 153n, 157, 253, 270 Saito, M., 198, 204, 218n, 220 Saksena, A., 85, 86, 88, 94, 108n, 112
445
Index
Salentino, 365n of Brindisi, 356-360 clitic climbing, 314, 347-352, 361 clitic climbing and finite clauses, 355-360 clitic climbing trigger verbs, 348 ka element, 351, 352, 354, 365n ku element, 349-352 HPSG analysis of, 352-355 properties of, 349, 350, 351, 352 restructuring verbs, 314, 347-360, 361 of Taranto, 356-360 Salvi, G., 368 Santorini, B., 116, 157, 232, 265n, 269 Saraswat, V., 110 Saturation in Phrase Structure Component, 390 Scalise, S., 7, 41 s-complements, see Sentential complements Scottish Gaelic aspect and argument structure, 95, 100 linking, 100 Scrambling, 172, 188, 223 in accusative ha -causative constructions, 187, 188, 193-194 adjunct, 196-205 of adverb phrases, 204, 205 amelioration of weak crossover effects by in Hindi, 210 in Korean, 209-210 case marking on arguments and, 216n clause-external, 160 clause-internal, 160, 211 in Hindi, 210 in Korean, 209 in control constructions, 181-182, 187 in dative /tfl-causative constructions, 187, 188, 191 in Japanese, 211 in Korean, 211 long-distance, 145-146, 154n, 177-205 in Hindi, 210, 218n in Japanese, 211-212 in Korean, 159-220 lexical rules for, 216n theoretical predictions, 206-210 vp extraposition plus, 145 in Mittelfeld, 130-131, 145-146 in raising constructions, 183-184
in in in in
raising-to-object constructions, 191-193 s-complement constructions, 194-196 subject-control constructions, 190 vp-complement constructions, 188-194, 205 Secondary patientlike roles, 101 Sells, P., 92, 112, 169, 216/1, 220 Semantically construed argument structures, 420n Semantic dependency, 217n Semantics lexical, 77-78 linking and, 106 of middle verb forms, 363n S-embedding, 250, 253-254 SEM value, 217n Sentences, kernel, xi Sentential complements, 177 analysis of, 166-167 constructions, 163 adjuncts in, 198-199, 202-203 analyses of, 194-196 scrambling in, 194-196 Separable prefixes, 65 in Dutch, 65-67, 240 placement of, 240 Sequence union, 55, 242 Serial verbs, 93, 365n se stesso anaphor (Italian), 411-412, 420n Shaumyan, S., 40 Short-distance passives, 141-142, 143 Shuffle, 35n, 242 si (Italian), middle, 335-336, 360 Lexical Rule, 335-336, 336-340, 346 Sign, 7, 272, 275, 280 sign sort, 170, 241, 263n, 265n nonphrase subsort, 170 phrase subsort, 170 Simple-word sort, 170 Simpson, J., 324, 368 Skytte, G., 362n, 364n, 368 SLASH feature, 48, 61, 62, 122, 263n Sort clitic, 362n Sort hierarchy, 170 Southern German dialects, 265n
446 Spanish argument merger, partial, 77 causative constructions, 34n causativization, 75 clefting, 319 clitic climbing, 305, 320 coordination, 319 right node raising, 319 verb structures, 35n Specificity, 86, 104 Split ergativity, 108n SPR feature, 56 Spurious ambiguity, 48 Sranan, complex event-bundling, 94 S(emantic)-structure, 102, 106 Stabler, E. P., 277, 278, 312 Starke, M., 363n, 366 Status, 264n (quasi-)lexical, 227 Status government, 262n Stem, 9 Stiebels, B., 232, 270 Strong distribution rule K, 293-296 Strong Lexicalism, 7 Hypothesis, 386 Structural case, 174, 176 Structural control, 276-281 Structural operators, 279, 283, 297 unary, 277-279, 310n Structures, 271 flat, 17, 55, 361n in Italian, 318 left-branching, 225-230 right-branching, 224, 227 syntactic, 318 Structure sharing, 320 Subcategorization frame, 6 principle, 52 verbal complement selection via, 232 SUBCAT feature, 168, 230, 231, 390-391 Subject clitics; see also Clitics in French, 308 Subject-control construction, in Korean, 190 Subject-control verbs, 115, 124-126, 142-144 Subjecthood, 221
Index
Subjects expletive, 419n in Korean, 215n in nonfinite complements, 252-254 raising-to-subject construction, 215n understood, 222 valence attributes for, 263n Subject-to-object raising causative construction, in English, 374 Subject-to-subject raising constructions, 221 Subject-verb agreement, 252-253 SUBJ feature, 56, 90, 132, 230 Subordinate clauses, in Dutch, 63 Syntactic control, 74 Syntactic control-raising, 92-94 Syntactic encoding, direct, 417n Syntactico-semantic complexes, synsems, 4, 6, 263n, 321 aff(ixal), 7 canon(ical), 7, 10, 13 noncan(onical), 7 of sort clitic, 362n Syntactics, 303, 418n Syntactic structure, in Italian, 316-320 Synthetic predicates, 371, 375, 392, 397, 415 in Chi-Mwi:ni, 380-382 in German, 379 in Italian, 383 in lexicon, 389 similarity with analytic predicates, 394
T
Tamil control construction, 181 word order, 179 Taranto province, Italy, Salentino of, 356-360 Tasmowski, L., 18, 39, 39n, 41 te (Albanian), 364n Template morphology, 324 Tenny, C, 74, 89, 94, 112 Tense, 370
447
Index Tense auxiliaries, 253, 261n in Dutch, 239-240 in French, 2, 3, 14-17 inversion of, 239-240 Terzi, A., 356, 364n, 368 that element (English), 365n Thematic roles, 97-98, 108n classification of, 101 hierarchy, 90, 99 reduced, 98 Thematic tiers, 94 Theme suppression, 105 Theta Criterion, 77-78, 106-107 O-identification, 90 O-role, 74 association, 212-213 Third construction, xiv, 52, 115-116 argument composition in, 131-135, 150-151 as coherence phenomenon, 146-147 in Dutch, 50 as focus raising, 154n forcing argument raising in, 131-135 in German, 116 linearization approach for, 129 ID schemas in, 131-135 as special case of VP extraposition, 122-129 verbal arguments, 263n VP extraposition interactions in Dutch, 145 in German, 115-157 linearization approach for, 129 Third Construction Lexical Rule, 126, 130, 135-138, 148, 151 preliminary version, 123-124 Third construction triggering verbs, 125, 151, 153n dual properties of, 129-131 Thompson, S., 213n, 219 Three-place causatives, 78, 88, 103, 104 Tiers aspect, 94 thematic, 94 TO-BIND|OC feature, 345
Topicalization, 117, 152n, 228 in German, 152n remnant, 262n TOPO attribute, 266n Topological fields, 51, 243, 304 Topological indices, 266n Topology, 51 Tough constructions, xvi in English, 340-341, 363n, 364n in French, 341 in Italian, 313, 316, 340-341, 346, 363n Trace, in object position, 37n Transformation, 385 Transformational Grammar, xi Transformational rules, 418n Transitivity, 8, 13, 19, 20, 27, 36, 273, 279 Tree modifying operations, 385 Turkish, 417n argument structure, 391-392, 393 causatives, 370 Lexical Rule System of Causatives (Universal and Parochial), 399 mixed, 383-385, 412-413 Schema, Type 1 (Turkish Instantiation), 412 kendim anaphor, 413 TVP, 214n Two-place causatives, 78, 88, 103, 109n
U
UG, see Universal Grammar Unaccusative Hypothesis, 364n Unary control operators, 277-279, 310n Unbounded Dependency Constructions, 313, 320, 344, 345 Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis, 74, 77 UNIONED attribute, 251 Universal Grammar, 419n Unmarked predicates, 419n Unspecified object deletion, 105 Unspecified objects, 105-106 Unterfeld, 238, 239 Upstairs cliticization, in composition FAIRE, 19-22 .
448 Urdu, 77, 107n, 108n case marking, 104, 108n causatives, 74, 79, 85-89, 94-102, 109n affectedness, 96-97 data, 85-87 lexical and compositional aspect, 95-96 morphemes, 85-86 causativization pattern, 86 data, 85-86 dynamic complex predicate formation in syntax, 91 nominatives, 104, 108n permission, 93 permissives, 74, 75, 79, 84, 94 analysis, 82 formation, 80-81 transitives, 87 Uszkoreit, H., 70n, 72, 116, 146, 153n, 154n, 157 UTAH, see Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis
V Valence, 217n, 390, 391, 394, 396, 416n, 418n auxiliary, 398, 405, 415 in Korean, 171 Principle, 52, 212, 337 for subjects vs complements, 263n Van den Toorn, M. C, 71 Van Geenhoven, V., 75, 109n, 112 Van Noord, G., xiii, 44, 50, 56, 63, 64, 65, 71n, 72, 205, 218, 225, 234, 239, 240, 248, 261n, 266n, 267, 270, 320, 368 Van Riemsdijk, H., 152n, 157, 212, 213, 219 VCOMP feature, 263n VCOMPL feature, 70n, 230-233, 231 verbal complement selection via, 232 verbal complex formation via, 232 Veenstra, T., 365n, 368 Vendler, Z., 95, 113 Verbal arguments, 263n Verbal complement-complex, 231 Verbal complements, 70n selection via VCOMPL vs SUBCAT, 232
Index
Verbal complexes, 43, 44, 70n, 221-270, 261n branching for, 147 constituency of, 225-233 discontinuous, 238-248 discontinuous (partial), 241 in Dutch, 121, 244-245, 247-248 formation via VCOMPL, 232 in French, 296-302 in German, 49, 121, 227-230, 243-247 Germanic, 212 HAUPTVERBKOMPLEX 'main verb complex,' 133 in Japanese, 227 in Korean, 159, 160, 170, 211, 215n, 227 linearization, 233-248 linearization-based theory, 248-260 as recursive X° structures, 262n split, 239 West Germanic, 261 Verbal-Complex ID Schema, 132, 133, 139, 231 Verbal spine, 263n Verb clusters, xiii, 70n, 261n canonical, 242-243 complement inheritance, 53-55 constituent structure, 263n in Dutch, 43-72, 63-69, 121, 233, 234, 263n fronting, 229, 262n in German, 43-72, 79, 121, 233, 242-243, 262n, 388 Germanic, 205 I-zone, 53-55 in Mittelfeld, 225 partial, fronting of, 229 topological field, 56 verbal elements, 262n West Germanic, 247 word order, 63-69, 234 word order constraints on, 43-72 Verb constructions auxiliary, 160-177 control, 205 in German, 205 modal, 205 raising, 205 serial, 365n
Index
Verb movement, 243 Verb phrase, xi complements, 122 adjunct scrambling, 198-199 analysis, 163-166 understood subject of, 222 complement structure, 18, 163 constituents, 178-181 flat, 44, 60, 69 in German, 44-50 in Korean, 178-181 nonextraposed, 150 partial, 44 derivation of, 52 fronting of, xiii, 44, 48, 52, 61-63, 69, 231, 262n Partial VP Expansion ID Schema, 148, 149 relatives, 117, 118, 123 topicalization of, 152n vp,-internal NP, 302 Verb phrase-complement constructions adjuncts in, 202-203 analyses of, 188-194 in Korean, 177, 178-188, 188-194 scrambling in, 205 in Korean, 188-194 Verb phrase extraposition, 118-122 double, 119, 149-150 in English, 153n plus long-distance scrambling, 145 third construction as special case of, 122-129 third construction interactions, 129 in Dutch, 145 in German, 115-157 Verb projection raising, 212 Verb raising, 120, 121 in Dutch, 279, 309n categorial logic example, 282-285 Verb-raising verbs, in Dutch, 63 Verbs, 5 Acl, 144 dndik (Chi-Mwi:ni), 409 argument structure specification, 4 aspectual, in Italian, 314 aspectual light, 85 auxiliary, 144 in French, 361n
449 basic, 5, 11, 13, 29 causative, 287 classification of, Aktionsart, 95 clitic, intrinsic, 5 clitic climbing trigger in Italian, 322, 328, 334 in Salentino, 348 complement, 205 complement inheritance, 43, 53 complex, in Italian, 314, 316, 320, 342, 343, 358 conative, in Italian, 322 control, 14, 255, see also Control Verb coherent, 251 in German, 117, 118, 120, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 144, 145, 147, 150, 151, 153n, 223, 255 incoherent, 251 in Korean, 189 (de)emotion, 174 equi, object-control, 125, 126 EQUi-control, 223 finite in Italian, 315 placement of, 153n governing expletive subjects, 419n impersonal, 26, 37 light, 83-85 main, 257-258 in German vs Dutch, 235 nonfinite, 235 vs passive verbs, 257-258 matrix, 205 medio-passive, 30 middle forms, 363n modal, 296-300 in German, 253 in Italian, 314 motion, in Italian, 314 non-finite, in Italian, 315 nulll (Malayalam), 404 object-control, in Korean, 215n partial extraposition, 52
450 Verbs (Continued) passive, 257-258 perception, 287, 296-300, 302 placement in German, 243-244 raising, 14, 125, 251, 418n, 419n characterization of, 253 in German, 125, 205, 222-223, 250, 251-253 in Korean, 193 in nonfinite complements, 252 reduced, 5, 11, 13, 29 reflexive essential, 37n in French, 23-33 inherent, 37n intrinsic, 26-28, 37n true, 27-30, 37n restructuring, xvi auxiliary selection of, 364n in Italian, 313-368 Romance, 93 Salentino, 347-360 riparare (Italian), 411 sequence of, 238 serial, 93 STATUS Of, 152n
subject-verb agreement, 252-253 third construction, 52 third construction triggering, 125, 151, 153n dual properties of, 129-131 types embedding nonfinite complements in German, 251-252 verb-raising, 63 Verb-second placement, 138, 153n Verb structures in Italian, 35n in Spanish, 35n Vergnaud, J.-R., 3, 36n, 39, 39n, 41 Verkuyl, H., 94, 96, 113 Versmissen, J. A. G., 277, 279, 310n, 312 VFORM feature, 59, 264n for German, 152n Visser, F. Th., 157 VP, see Verb Phrase VPR, see Verb projection raising
Index
V-projection raising, 265n constructions, 238
W Wanner, D., 363n, 368 Warlpiri, 159 WCO effect, see Weak crossover effect Weak crossover effect, xiv, 160, 206 amelioration of in Japanese, 211 in Korean, 209-210, 211-212 Webelhuth, G., xvi, 256, 257, 258, 259, 267n, 270, 370, 371, 390, 396, 397, 415, 418n, 419n, 420n, 421, 422 Wechsler, S., 8, 41 Wedekind, J., 95, 111 WEIGHT feature, 16 Welsh, 132 word order, 179 Wesche, B., 152n, 153n, 156 West Greenlandic languages, noun incorporation, 109n wh-movement, in Italian, 318 Williams, E., 92, 113 Withgott, M, 324, 368 Wollstein-Leisten, A., 116, 148, 157 Word formation, 386 Word-likeness, 262n Word objects, 362n Word order constraints on verb clusters in German and Dutch, 43-72 domains, 55 flat, 56 in Dutch verb clusters, 63-69, 234 flipped, 46, 47, 59 in German verb clusters, 51-63, 69, 234 government of, 55-60 head-complement schema, 51-53 HPSG theories, 153n in Korean complex clauses, 188-205 normal, 47 in Tamil, 179 in Welsh, 179 Word-phrase status, 232
451
Index
Words (CLITIC-REALIZATION, 6, 7, 9 types of, 6-12 Word sort, 170 Wunderlich, D., 232, 270
X XCOMP feature, 82 x° structures, recursive, 262n
Y Yatabe, S., 206, 211, 220 Yoo, E. J., 173-174, 183, 188, 192, 215n, 220
Yoon, J. H. S., 163, 220 Yoshimura, N., 211, 218n, 220
Z Zaenen, A., 35n, 37n, 41, 90, 91, 98, 108n, 110, 113, 268 Zimmer, K. E., 3, 17, 40 ZONE, 53-54, 67, 71n inner, see I-zone outer, see O-zone Zone LP constraints, 54 Zubizarreta, M. L., 3, 41, 363n, 368 Zwicky, A., 216n, 220, 262n, 270, 303, 312 Zwischenstellung ('intermediate placement'), 50, 59, 239
This page intentionally left blank
SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS
Volume 1 edited by John P. Kimball Volume 2 edited by John P. Kimball Volume 3: Speech Acts edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan Volume 4 edited by John P. Kimball Volume 5: Japanese Generative Grammar edited by Masayoshi Shibatani Volume 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions edited by Masayoshi Shibatani Volume 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground edited by James D. McCawley Volume 8: Grammatical Relations edited by Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock Volume 9: Pragmatics edited by Peter Cole Volume 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table edited by Frank Heny and Helmut S. Schnelle Volume 11: Presupposition edited by Choon-Kyu Oh and David S. Dinneen Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax edited by Talmy Givon Volume 13: Current Approaches to Syntax edited by Edith A. Moravcsik and Jessica R. Wirth
Volume 14: Tense and Aspect edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen Volume 15: Studies in Transitivity edited by Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson Volume 16: The Syntax of Native American Languages edited by Eung-Do Cook and Donna B. Gerdts Volume 17: Composite Predicates in English Ray Cattell Volume 18: Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case Alice C. Harris Volume 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics edited by Hagit Borer Volume 20: Discontinuous Constituency edited by Geoffrey J. Huck and Almerindo E. Ojeda Volume 21: Thematic Relations edited by Wendy Wilkins Volume 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese Shigeru Miyagawa Volume 23: The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages edited by Randall Hendrick Volume 24: Modern Icelandic Syntax edited by Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen Volume 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing edited by Susan D. Rothstein Volume 26: Syntax and the Lexicon edited by Tim Stowell and Eric Wehrli Volume 27: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian edited by Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin E. Kiss Volume 28: Small Clauses edited by Anna Cardinaletti and Maria Teresa Guasti Volume 29: The Limits of Syntax edited by Peter Culicover and Louise McNally Volume 30: Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax edited by Erhard Hinrichs, Andreas Kathol, and Tsuneko Nakazawa
