The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective

This volume brings together ten chapters on the Celtic languages, using the insights of principles-and-parameters theory. The leading researchers in the field examine Welsh, Irish, Breton and Scots Gaelic in a comparative perspective, making reference to recent work on English, French, Arabic, German and other languages. The editors have provided a substantial introduction which seeks to make the volume accessible to theoreticians unfamiliar with the Celtic languages and also to Celtic specialists who are less familiar with the theoretical framework underpinning the work. The syntax of the Celtic languages makes a substantial contribution both to linguistic theory and to our understanding of the Celtic languages. It will appeal to those interested in comparative syntax and to those specializing in the Celtic languages.

The syntax of the Celtic languages

The syntax of the Celtic languages A comparative perspective

edited by ROBERT D. BORSLEY and IAN ROBERTS University of Wales, Bangor

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www. Cambridge. org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521481601 © Cambridge University Press 1996 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1996 This digitally printed first paperback version 2005 A catalogue recordfor this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data The syntax of the Celtic languages: a comparative perspective / edited by Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 521 48160 0 (hardback) 1. Celtic languages — Syntax. I. Borsley, Robert D. II. Roberts, Ian G. PB1071.S96 1996 491.6-dc20 95-14193 CIP ISBN-13 978-0-521-48160-1 hardback ISBN-10 0-521-48160-0 hardback ISBN-13 978-0-521-02324-5 paperback ISBN-10 0-521-02324-6 paperback

Contents

List of contributors Introduction Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

page viii 1

1 Long head movement in Breton Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

53

2 Some syntactic effects of suppletion in the Celtic copulas Randall Hendrick

75

3 Fronting constructions in Welsh Maggie Tallerman

97

4 Bod in the present tense and in other tenses Alain Rouveret

125

5 Pronominal enclisis in VSO languages Ian Roberts and Ur Shlonsky

171

6 Aspect, agreement and measure phrases in Scottish Gaelic David Adger

200

7 A minimalist approach to some problems of Irish word order 223 Jonathan David Bobaljik and Andrew Carnie 8 Subjects and subject positions in Irish James McCloskey 9 Negation in Irish and the representation of monotone decreasing quantifiers Paolo Acquaviva 10 On structural invariance and lexical diversity in VSO languages: arguments from Irish noun phrases Nigel Duffield

241

284

314

References

341

Index

357

Contributors

Paolo Acquaviva, University College Dublin David Adger, University of York Jonathan David Bobaljik, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert D. Borsley, University of Wales, Bangor Andrew Carnie, University of Calgary Nigel Duffield, McGill University Randall Hendrick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill James McCloskey, University of California, Santa Cruz Maria-Luisa Rivero, University of Ottawa Ian Roberts, University of Wales, Bangor Alain Rouveret, Universite de Paris VIII Ur Shlonsky, Universite de Geneve Janig Stephens, Cardiff Institute of Higher Education Maggie Tallerman, University of Durham

Introduction Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

1 Preliminary remarks This book grew out of a conference on Comparative Celtic Syntax held at the University of Wales, Bangor, on 25-7 June 1992.1 Earlier versions of seven of the ten chapters collected here were given at that conference. The idea behind the conference was to bring together researchers working on the syntax of the Celtic languages from a 'principles-and-parameters' perspective (the assumptions behind this perspective are outlined below in section 2.1), and, in particular, to provide a forum where comparative work on Celtic syntax could be presented. The comparative work was intended to be both internal and external to the Celtic family. Hence, one goal of the conference was to encourage those working on Celtic to make comparisons with non-Celtic languages, and to bring relevant phenomena and analyses of Celtic languages to the attention of those working on non-Celtic languages. Although the precise contents differ from the conference, and this volume should not be taken as a conference proceedings, we have compiled this collection with the same general goals in mind. This introduction is intended to provide the background to the chapters that follow, both for those who are unfamiliar with the principles-and-parameters framework and for those who are unfamiliar with the Celtic languages. In this section, we briefly sketch the historical, geographical and social situation of the languages. Section 2 provides background to the principles-and-parameters framework. This section is of most relevance for readers who may be familiar with the languages but who are less familiar with this framework. Sections 3 and 4 then discuss a number of aspects of the syntax of Celtic that are of particular interest from a principles-and-parameters perspective, either for general theoretical reasons or because of the comparative interest of the particular Celtic phenomena in relation to other languages. These sections are of most relevance to readers who are familiar with work on other languages in the principles-and-parameters framework, but who are less familiar with the Celtic languages. Of course, none of these introductory sections is exhaustive: a complete introduction to the syntactic framework is given in Haegeman (1994), and fuller discussions of Celtic syntax are provided in the chapters themselves, as well as in the collections in Hendrick (1990b) and the special issue of Natural Language and Linguistic Theory devoted 1

2

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

to these languages (NLLT 7.3, 1989). A general survey of the Celtic languages, covering all descriptive areas as well as sociolinguistic and dialectological questions, is MacAulay (1992). The Celtic languages are a subgroup of Indo-European. Certain morphological similarities have led to the suggestion that Celtic and Italic form a common subgroup, although this view is no longer widely held. The Celtic languages are grouped together on the basis of shared innovations with respect to IndoEuropean, such as the absence of a reflex of Indo-European *p in initial and medial positions (cf. Irish athair 'father' vs. Latin pater, English father, etc.), a number of which are not found elsewhere in the family. Within Celtic, the basic division is between Continental and Insular Celtic. Continental Celtic refers to the languages spoken by the Celts in continental Europe between roughly 500BC and 500AD. These languages are only known through Latin and Greek versions of proper names, and a small number of inscriptions from France and northern Italy. The principal Continental Celtic languages were Gaulish, Celtiberian and Lepontic. Since, given the nature of the attested evidence, very little can be known about the syntax of these languages, they are not mentioned in any of the chapters in this collection. Insular Celtic refers to the Celtic languages that are historically rooted in the British Isles (including Breton, which is the result of fifth- and sixth-century migrations from Cornwall). These languages are divided into two groups: Brythonic (or Brittonic or British) and Goidelic (or Gaelic). The principal distinguishing feature of the two groups is the reflex of Indo-European *kw, which in Brythonic gives p and in Goidelic gives k: for example, Welsh pump ('five') corresponds to Irish coic (cf. Latin quinque). For this reason, the two branches are sometimes referred to as T-Celtic' and 'Q-Celtic' respectively (the term 'Q-Celtic' originates from the Latin transliteration of the Ogam symbol for /ku/). There are six Insular Celtic languages: three Goidelic and three Brythonic: the three Goidelic languages are Irish, Manx and Scots Gaelic; the three Brythonic ones are Breton, Cornish and Welsh. Of these six languages, Cornish and Manx are no longer spoken. The remaining four languages are the only ones that still have native speakers, and these are the only ones that are discussed in this volume. We will now briefly sketch the historical, geographical and social situation of each one. For more details, see the respective chapters of MacAulay (1992). Irish, as the official first language of the Republic of Ireland, is the only Celtic language to be a national standard. It is not known when the Celts migrated to Ireland, but they were certainly there in Classical times. The earliest attestations of Insular Celtic are the forms of Irish recorded in the indigenous Ogam script (approximately 300-500). Old Irish (600-900) provides the oldest body of literary texts in Celtic. Until the consolidation of colonial English power and the transplantation of English-speaking migrants to Ireland in the seventeenth century, Irish was the language of essentially the whole island of Ireland. From

Introduction

3

the beginning of the colonial period, Irish declined. In 1851, at the first census which asked about language, only 23 per cent of the population were Irishspeaking. At present, between 30,000 and 70,000 native speakers of Irish remain (estimates vary), scattered in small communities in the extreme west of the country. Scots Gaelic was imported into Scotland from Ireland some time before the fifth century AD. It has always been linguistically very close to Irish, especially to the Ulster dialects, and until the seventeenth century the written language was essentially Irish. It has never been the language of the whole of Scotland: Pictish was spoken in Classical times, although it was eventually replaced by Gaelic. Brythonic languages were also spoken in the south until roughly the eleventh century. A northern dialect of English has been spoken in the south-east, around Edinburgh, for over a thousand years. The last few centuries have seen a steady retreat of Gaelic to the north and west, aided by official policy from the seventeenth century to the twentieth. The number of speakers has diminished from about 300,000 in 1800 to about 80,000 in 1981. The largest proportion of these speakers is in the Western Isles. The local authority in this area has an official bilingual policy, and there is some bilingual education. Breton was, as mentioned above, imported into north-western France from Cornwall around the fifth and sixth centuries. Although Brittany was largely politically independent until it was absorbed into France in 1532, the ruling classes were probably French-speaking much earlier. The earliest connected Breton texts date from the fifteenth century, and the orthography was standardized in the early nineteenth century. Until 1951 Breton was prohibited in schools, and children were punished if they were heard speaking it. The traditionally recognized linguistic frontier separating Breton from French runs across the peninsula from St Brieuc in the north to Vannes in the south. West of this line, Breton is spoken in rural communities, particularly inland. No statistical evidence is available about Breton, since it has no official status within the French Republic. Estimates of the number of speakers vary from 400,000 to 600,000, though all agree that the figure is declining rapidly. Welsh is the linguistic survivor of the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the main island of Britain, which began in the fifth century AD. Because its immediate ancestor was spoken throughout England during the period of Roman administration (43-405), Welsh contains a large number of Latin loan words. The period from the fifth to the seventeenth century was one of steady Anglo-Saxon encroachment westwards. Old Welsh is attested from the eighth century, by which time the language was confined to Wales, having been separated from Cornish in the south in the sixth century. Wales ceased to be an independent country in 1288, and lost all political autonomy with the Act of Union in 1536. However, the form of Modern Literary Welsh wasfixedby the Bible translation of 1588. The Methodist revival of the eighteenth century arguably saved Welsh, spreading both literacy

4

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

and liturgy in the language. Until the industrial revolution, almost all of Wales was wholly Welsh-speaking. In 1921, 37.1 per cent of the total population was Welsh-speaking; this had declined to 18.9 per cent by 1981 (a total of 503,549 people). Since 1967, the language has had official status throughout Wales. Bilingual schools are found everywhere, and there has been a Welsh television station since the 1980s. Although its long-term future is far from secure, Welsh appears to be the most firmly established and widely spoken Celtic language at present. This concludes our brief overview of the languages that are discussed here. In the next section, we turn to more theoretical questions, providing a sketch of the basic assumptions about syntactic theory that are common to the chapters collected here.

2 Theoretical framework 2.1 Principles and parameters

All the contributions to this volume assume the 'principles-and-parameters' approach as the framework for the study of comparative syntax. Here we very briefly describe what that approach involves. In the present context, we cannot give a full introduction; for a full discussion and illustration of the concept of a parameter of Universal Grammar, see the introduction to Jaeggli and Saflr (1989), and for a general introduction to the principles and parameters approach, see Haegeman (1994). Chomsky was the originator of the notion of Universal Grammar in the context of modern linguistics (see in particular Chomsky 1975, 1980, 1986a, 1988 for a fuller discussion and defence of this idea). Universal Grammar (UG) consists of an invariant core of constitutive principles which are common to all possible human languages. These principles are innately given: that is, they form part of the human genetic endowment. In order to account for the attested variation among the world's languages, these principles are associated with parameters of variation which make it possible for a principle to be realized in different ways in different languages. Since the principles of UG are fairly abstract in nature, a minimal difference in the value of an associated parameter in two different languages may give rise to dramatic surface differences in the wellformed sentences of the languages. In this way, the principles-and-parameters approach is able to account for the differences among languages while maintaining the idea that all languages are cut from the same cloth. An example of the interaction of principles and parameters comes from certain well-known differences between French and English regarding the position of the inflected main verb in finite clauses (see Emonds 1978; Pollock 1989). It was

Introduction

5

originally argued by Emonds (1978) that French has a rule moving finite verbs out of VP, while English does not. The basic form of the observation is as follows: there is a class of elements X that can be plausibly regarded as positioned on the left edge of VP. These elements include VP-adverbs, clausal negation and floated quantifiers. In French, finite main verbs must precede X, while English main verbs always follow X. The relevant paradigms are as follows: (1)

Adverb a. Jean embrasse souvent Marie. *Jean souvent embrasse Marie. b. *John kisses often Mary. John often kisses Mary.

(2)

Negation a. Jean (ne) mange pas du chocolat. *Jean (ne) pas mange du chocolat. b. *John eats not chocolate. John does not eat chocolate.

(3)

Floated quantifiers a. Les enfants mangent tous le chocolat. *Les enfants tous mangent le chocolat. b. T h e children eat all chocolate. The children all eat chocolate.

The evidence clearly shows that finite verbs are in different positions in the two languages. The alternative is to suggest that the X-elements differ between the two languages (this has been suggested by Williams 1994). The usual account of these differences is that French verbs move to I (for Inflection), a node comparable to the Aux node of early transformational work which contains features of tense, agreement, etc. in a tree structure such as the following (see the discussion of clause structure in section 2.2):

6 (4)

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts IP

Les enfants mangent tous

I

J

le chocolat

Here, the V-to-I rule places the finite verb in a position preceding X. The operation of this rule in French thus derives the orders seen in (l)-(3) above, and its non-operation in English derives the English orders seen in those examples. Standard assumptions about subject-verb inversion deriving from the seminal work of den Besten (1983) treat this operation as involving movement of I to C. Given the Head Movement Constraint (see Travis 1984; Baker 1988; and section 2.4 below), V cannot move directly to C, and so inversion of main verbs depends on the prior operation of V-to-I movement to feed it. Thus we find that French main verbs are able to undergo inversion (subject to the independent restriction that the subject be a clitic - see Rizzi and Roberts 1989), while English main verbs are unable to do so: (5)

a. Voit-il le cheval? b. *Sees he the horse?

The contrast in (4) is further evidence that French main verbs move to I while their English counterparts do not.2 Chomsky (1993) proposes that the relevant parameter concerns the value of an abstract morphological feature that licenses verbs, and is associated with I. This feature is called Fs V-feature. In Chomsky's system, such features are generated both on V and on I, and must be cancelled out by a checking operation prior to LF since they have no semantic content and will thus violate the Principle of Full Interpretation, which applies at LF, unless eliminated. The feature varies parametrically as either strong or weak. If it is strong, it is visible to the PF component, and hence must be eliminated prior to the mapping to that level of representation, that is, prior to S-structure. Since feature-checking takes place in a highly local domain, V must move to I in order for feature-checking to take place. Thus where the V-feature is strong, V raises overtly to I. Where the feature is

Introduction

7

weak, the Procrastinate Principle, which delays movement to the covert, postSpell-Out part of the grammar wherever possible, prevents this movement from taking place overtly. In these terms, then, the UG principle is that V-features must be checked, and the parametric variation consists in French I having a strong V-feature and English I a weak V-feature. This outline of the basic ideas of the principles-and-parameters approach to cross-linguistic variation and typology, although extremely sketchy and simplified, is enough for our purposes here. One important facet of this approach is that it makes it possible in principle to isolate structural isomorphisms among unrelated languages: that is, we expect to find interesting similarities between languages with no historical or other connection. This can be attributed to their choosing the same parameter settings in a given domain. In this way, very enlightening and unexpected comparisons become possible. The present volume offers two such instances: the similarities between Celtic languages and Semitic languages in the nature of pronouns and word order studied by Roberts and Shlonsky, and the iong head movement' construction shared between Breton and various Slavonic and Romance languages studied by Borsley, Rivero and Stephens. Duffield's article also brings out similarities among Irish, Hebrew and Maltese. We now have a notion of how current theory accounts for syntactic differences and similarities between languages. The principles-and-parameters approach was designed to account for synchronic variation, and, as the chapters presented here attest for the case of a relatively little-studied and somewhat 'exotic' language family, it provides the right kind of restricted yet flexible analytic framework for this.

2.2 Clause structure and functional categories

Most of the work contained in this volume takes its fundamental impetus from the recent upsurge of research on clause structure. The current interest in clause structure revolves around a hypothesized system of non-lexical categories which carry essentially 'morphological' information: the functional categories. This work was stimulated initially by Chomsky (1986b), and the approach was further developed by Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1991, 1993). Work on functional categories inside nominals has also been very important; we will discuss this in section 2.3. The X-bar schema gives the internal structure of syntactic categories.3 (6)

a. XP -> b. X' -+

YP X

X' ZP

8

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

Originally this schema was taken to apply only to the lexical categories N, V, A and P. It was assumed that the 'clausal' categories S and S' were generated by the following PS-rules: (7)

a. S ' ^ C O M P S b. S - » N P A u x V P

This was clearly an undesirable state of affairs given the general programme, initiated by Chomsky (1981) and Stowell (1981), for the elimination of independent PS-rules from the theory. Accordingly, Chomsky (1986b) proposed that S and S' are projections of the non-lexical categories I(nfl) and C(omp), respectively. As we mentioned above, I corresponds roughly to the Aux node of earlier work, and contains in particular features specifying tense and agreement; this position had originally been argued to be the head of S in Hale, Jeanne and Platero (1977). In the system of Chomsky (1986b), the specifier of I is the subject position, and the complement of I is VP. C is the earlier COMP position; its specifier is the landing site for w/z-movement and (in verb-second languages see below) fronted topics, and its complement is IP. So we have the following clause structure:

Here CP and IP are functional categories, and together make up what is sometimes called the 'functional domain' of the clause. All the chapters in this volume assume some version of the structure in (8), frequently with further elaboration. One important result of Pollock's (1989) work on verb movement in English and French is the 'split-InfT hypothesis. The initial evidence for this comes from the behaviour of French infinitives. First, Pollock observes that French infinitives show the same split between auxiliaries and main verbs as English finite verbs, in that only the auxiliaries etre and avoir can move over the negative pas (see Emonds' (1978) rule of have•/'be raising which applies in English finite clauses): (9)

a. N'etre pas content est une condition pour ecrire. T o be not happy is a condition for writing.' b. *Ne sembler pas content . . . T o seem not happy . . .'

Introduction

9

However, the situation regarding the placement of main-verb infinitives in relation to adverbs is more complex. While infinitives cannot raise over negation, they can precede some adverbs, for instance: (10)

a. A peine parler l'italien apres cinqans d'etude . . . hardly to-speak Italian after five years of study . . . b. Parler a peine l'italien apres cinq ans d'etude . . .

Pollock is led to propose a 'short' movement of main-verb infinitives. Following the Structure Preservation Condition of Chomsky (1986b), the landing-site of this movement must be a head. Pollock capitalizes on the fact that I node of Chomsky (1986b) was a rather unnatural combination of the features of Tense (T) and Agreement (Agr), and proposes that these two kinds of features should each project their own X-bar structure. This gives the two separate functional projections TP and AgrP. The 'short' movement of main-verb infinitives in French is then seen as movement to the lower of these two heads, while the longer movement of tensed main verbs in French is to the higher of these heads. Pollock assumed that TP dominates AgrP, so this gives the following clause structure: (11)

Pollock's 'split-Infl' hypothesis has given rise to a vast amount of work on basic clause structure and functional categories. Almost any property that can be reasonably ascribed to an auxiliary system - Aspect, Modality, Negation, Voice, etc. - has been associated with its own functional category. Thus, just as it is unclear what the inventory of 'possible auxiliary notions' is, it is unclear what the full inventory of functional categories might be. It would be impossible here to outline all the proposals for clause structure and functional categories that have been made in the past few years. However, two elaborations of Pollock's system are worthy of particular note and so we briefly discuss them here. Belletti (1990) argues that AgrP should be taken to dominate TP, apparently the inverse of Pollock's split-Infl structure. Chomsky (1991) elaborates Belletti's proposal further by suggesting that there are separate functional projections for subject and object agreement: there is an Agr-projection above T which is the

10

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

position of affixes specifying agreement with the subject, or AgrS, and there is also an Agr-projection below TP, the position for agreement with the object, AgrO (see Kayne 1989a). The structure of the clause is thus as in (12): (12)

CP Spec

^

C

\

Spec

AgrS'

Spec

AgiO' AgiO

^ Spec

Most current work assumes this, usually with further functional projections for Negation and, frequently, a further projection between C and AgrS. The above paragraphs have been concerned mainly with verb movement within IP, and consequently have not addressed the analysis of inversion constructions, i.e. constructions in which the verb moves over the subject. The most prominent type of construction where the verb appears to regularly move out of IP is the verb-second phenomenon, found in all Germanic languages (except for contemporary English). The verb-second (or V2) construction features movement of the finite verb coupled with fronting of some XP. The precise nature of XP is immaterial; it may be the subject, a complement or an adverbial element. The following German sentences (from Tomaselli 1989), illustrate the phenomenon: (13)

a. Ich I b. Ich I

las read habe have

schon letztes already last schon letztes already last

(14)

a. Diesen Roman las ich schon letztes Jahr. this book read I already last year b. Diesen Roman habe ich schon letztes Jahr gelesen. this book have I already last year read

(15)

a. Schon letztes already last b. Schon letztes already last

Jahr year Jahr year

Jahr year Jahr year

las read habe have

diesen this diesen this

ich diesen I this ich diesen I this

Roman. book Roman gelesen. book read

Roman. book Roman gelesen. book read

Introduction

11

The topic of V2 is of considerable interest for comparative Celtic syntax; Breton appears to show a similar constraint (though not precisely what we find in Germanic) and the other languages all feature V-fronting operations which may be similar to the Germanic verb-fronting. A very influential analysis of V2 (although certainly not the only one) was first put forward in den Besten (1983). Den Besten proposed that the inflected verb moves to the C-position in matrix declaratives in V2 languages. This operation is associated with the fronting of some XP to SpecC. In this way, the root nature of the phenomenon is explained: embedded complementizers are frequently filled (and at a more abstract level of analysis, they perhaps always are) and so cannot serve as the landing site for the fronted verb. However, there are two further questions here. One concerns the treatment of SVO sentences like (13) in V2 languages - is the subject in SpecAgr' or in SpecC7? For differing points of view, see Zwart (1993) and Vikner and Schwartz (forthcoming). The other concerns the nature of the allegedly 'symmetric' V2 languages Icelandic and Yiddish, in which V2 is possible in all clause types (see Rognvaldsson and Thrainsson 1990 on Icelandic; Santorini 1989 on Yiddish). One analysis of these languages, however, assumes that verbs are not fronted to C but to some lower functional head position. For different versions of this idea, see Cardinaletti and Roberts (1991) and Diesing (1990). Another important development in our conception of clause structure is logically distinct from the elaboration of the functional structure of the clause, but has interacted with it in important ways. This is the VP-internal subject hypothesis, originally proposed in generative grammar by Fillmore (1968), and developed in recent theories by Fukui and Speas (1986), Koopman and Sportiche (1991), Kuroda (1988) and others. The central idea, as Koopman and Sportiche put it, is that one can show that I (to revert to the 'non-split' Infl for ease of presentation) has the properties of a raising predicate (see Ross 1969). These properties are (a) that it assigns no thematic role of its own, and (b) that its surface subject can be anything selected by a structurally lower predicate, including expletive elements (which are non-thematic by definition) and idiom chunks. The following comparison of a classic raising verb, seem, and what is generally taken to be an I-element, the modal will, illustrate the parallels: (16)

a. b. c. d.

John seems to speak Chinese. It seems to rain a lot here. There seems to be a problem. The cat seems to be out of the bag.

(17)

a. b. c. d.

John will speak Chinese. It will rain a lot today. There will be a problem. The cat will be out of the bag.

12

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

In the (a) sentences, the subject is clearly the agent of speak, not of seem or will. In the (b) and (c) sentences, different expletives are associated with the meteorological and existential main predicates respectively. Finally, the (d) examples show a piece of an idiom appearing as subject, without seem or will taking on any idiomatic interpretation. This parallel syntax of raising verbs and I-elements led to the idea that I is a raising predicate. In these terms, the subject must be thought of as generated inside VP and raised to its surface position (in SVO languages - see section 3). In this section we have given only the barest outline of the extent of recent work on clause structure and functional categories. The analyses to be found in the articles contained in this volume, which we will review in the next section, will refine this outline somewhat.

2.3 The structure of nominals The general tendencies seen in the development of theories of clause structure that we reviewed in the previous subsection are also apparent in recent work on nominals. Above all, functional categories have been shown to play a central role in this domain, too. The most important functional category in nominals is the Determiner Phrase, or DP. This was originally proposed by Abney (1987) and by Fukui and Speas (1986). Abney (1987) motivated the postulation of DP for the analysis of the English POSS-mg gerundives, such as John's building a spaceship. These elements have the external distribution of a nominal phrase, but an internal structure that appears to contain the VP build a spaceship. The nominal-like external distribution is shown by the fact that these gerundives can appear in NP-positions where true clauses cannot appear, for example subject position and object of preposition: (18)

a. *Did [that John built a spaceship] upset you? b. Did [John's building a spaceship] upset you?

(19)

a. *I told you about [that John had built a spaceship], b. I told you about [John's building a spaceship].

The gerundive itself, however, is verb-like in that its object is accusative rather than genitive (20a), it allows raising (20b), exceptional Case-marking (20c), double-object constructions (20d) and verb-particle constructions (20e), and is modified by an adverb rather than an adjective (20f). All these properties are characteristic of verbs as opposed to nouns: (20)

a. John's destroying/*destruction the spaceship b. John's appearing/*appearance to be dead c. John's believing/*belief Bill to be innocent

Introduction

13

d. John's giving/*gift Mary a Fiat e. John's explaining/*explanation the problem away f. John's deliberately building a spaceship. X-bar Theory prevents us from positing a structure like (21), which would otherwise be able to account for the facts in (18)—(20): (21)

Example (21) violates X-bar Theory because NP t is exocentric. A claim of X-bar Theory is that all syntactic categories are endocentric. Instead of (21), Abney argues that we should posit the following structure: (22)

John's

building a spaceship

Where the component to D is NP, we have a standard nominal. D is overtly realized by articles and some quantifiers, as in John's every book, etc. We must also postulate a Spec-head agreement relation between Dj and DP 2 in Spec, D( in order to account for the impossibility of * John's the book alongside the book. Cross-linguistic evidence supports this idea, in that many languages show agreement between possessor and possessed within nominals. Turkish does, and also shows the same agreement in POSS-/«g constructions: (23)

a. on-un el-i he-GEN hand-3sG 'his hand' b. Halil'-in kedi-ye yemek-0 er-me-dig-i H.-GEN

Cat-DAT food-ACC give-NEG-GER-3SG

'H.'s not giving food to the cat' This motivates the association of agreement features with D, and the related suggestion that English D contains abstract agreement in POSS-/«g constructions and perhaps possessives. Following the initial postulation of a functional category inside nominals, there was, as in the case of clauses, a proliferation of proposals. Here again, almost any

14

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

morphological property associated with nominals has been assigned to its own projection: Number, Gender, Case, Agreement, etc. Space prevents us from reviewing all of these proposals, although some are utilized in the following chapters (see in particular Duffield's contribution). A further parallel with work on clause structure concerns the idea that N may raise to D (or to another functional head inside DP). This idea can account for two kinds of phenomena. First, it has been used (by Delsing 1990; Taraldsen 1990) to account for postnominal articles of the type found in the Scandinavian languages. Thus, a form like hus-et ('house-the') is derived by N-movement adjoining hus to -et in D in a structure like the following: (24)

DP D

NP

-et

hus-

The phenomenon of postnominal articles can then be reduced to the operation of a movement rule. Longobardi (1994) argues that this movement rule applies at LF in those languages where it not does apply overtly, in order to give referential value to the N. Second, the Semitic construct-state construction may feature D-to-N raising. This has been argued for by Ritter (1988) and by Siloni (1991a, 1994) for Semitic, and the analysis carries over naturally to Celtic possessives (see section 3.7 below for illustration). The parallel with the way in which verb movement in clauses gives rise to VSO order is striking, especially given that constructs are found just in languages that are either fully or residually VSO: Celtic and Semitic. These issues are explored in detail by Duffield, and to some extent also by Roberts and Shlonsky.

2.4 Head movement We mentioned above in connection with (5) that English auxiliaries can undergo movement to I and therefore can undergo inversion: that is, movement from I to C. In embedded clauses, complementizers occupy C°, blocking I-to-C movement; this gives the well-known result that subject-aux inversion is blocked in many kinds of embedded clauses (e.g. */ wonder if has John left). I-to-C movement is an instantiation of a general process of head-to-head movement, itself just that variant of the general schema for movement, move-a, where the value of a is X°. Head-to-head movement, or incorporation, was

Introduction

15

explored and elaborated in detail from a theoretical point of view by Baker (1988). We will not go into the technical details of Baker's proposals here, but simply indicate the main formal properties of the operation: 1 Head-to-head movement is local. This means that V cannot move directly to C, 'skipping' I. This restriction is formulated as the Head Movement Constraint (HMC) of Travis (1984). This constraint may be violated in particular languages under particular conditions - see Borsley, Rivero and Stephens' chapter in this volume. 2 Head-to-head movement is cyclic. This is another property head movement shares with other kinds of movement. It is thus possible to reiterate the movement such that it passes through several heads; this in fact happens in subject-aux inversion, where the auxiliary moves from V to I and on to C. 3 Head-to-head movement is structure-preserving. This means that heads can only move to other heads; movement which attaches a head to XP or to X' is ruled out. It follows from structure preservation, combined with the Head Movement Constraint, that when we see a verb occupying the C position, we must conclude that it has passed through I. Thus head movement is local, cyclic and structure-preserving. All these properties are the direct result of the fact that head movement is nothing more than the instantiation of move-a where a is a head.

2.5 Clitics Clitics are 'weak', unstressed items which are dependent on another item which functions as 'host'. The dependency may be phonological, morphological or syntactic, or, in principle, any of these three together. Many different kinds of elements can be clitics: pronouns, auxiliaries, conjunctions, articles, etc. Here we restrict our attention, following a tradition of generative studies initiated by Kayne (1975), to pronominal clitics. We also restrict attention to syntactic clitics, that is, elements which can be shown to be syntactically dependent on their hosts and indeed are often held to be moved into 'special' derived positions by cliticplacement rules. For example, Kayne (1975) argued for a clitic-placement rule moving la into preverbal position from the usual postverbal object position in an example like the following: (25)

a. Jean John b. Jean John

voit sees la her

Marie. Mary voit. sees

16

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

Clitics are thus usually seen as syntactically dependent elements that appear in 'special' positions. Clitic doubling is an important phenomenon which is relevant for the Celtic languages. There are two principal kinds of doubling: that involving subjects and that involving complements. In Romance, these are easily distinguishable: subject-clitic doubling does not require a special marking of the subject, and is not sensitive to semantic properties of the subject. Subject-clitic doubling is found in most northern Italian dialects; the following example is from Fiorentino (Brandi and Cordin 1989: 113): (26)

La Maria la parla. the M. she speaks 'M. speaks.'

Object-clitic doubling is found in some Latin American dialects of Spanish, particularly in Platense. Here the object must be marked with a, and only nonreferentially quantified objects are allowed (Jaeggli 1982: 14, 45f.): (27)

a. Lo him 'We b. *^A A c. *Lo him

vimos a Guille. we-saw A Guille saw Guille.' quien lo viste? who him you-saw vi a un chico. I-saw A a boy

It is unclear how valid the Romance asymmetry between subjects and objects is cross-linguistically. Clitics and, arguably, clitic doubling are pervasive phenomena in the Celtic languages (see in particular Roberts and Shlonsky's contribution, and the discussion in section 3.8 below). Clitic doubling raises the important question of the relationship between clitics and agreement. We can illustrate the issue using Spanish data. Spanish is a nullsubject language, in that it allows finite clauses with an empty subject which is interpreted as a definite pronoun. Example (27a) illustrates this; here the subject is unambiguously first-person plural, although the relevant pronoun is not present. A standard observation, which goes back to traditional grammar, is that the verbal agreement marking permits the relevant information, here person and number features, to be 'recovered'. Hence, 'dropping' the subject pronoun is allowed. In English on the other hand, a sentence like saw John is ungrammatical because the content of the missing subject pronoun cannot be recovered, owing to the lack of relevant inflectional marking on the verb. These ideas have been formalized in terms of the notion that a phonologically empty pronoun, pro, is allowed (or 'licensed') in Spanish and similar languages. The verbal inflection plays a crucial role in licensing pro by recovering its content (see Rizzi 1986;

Introduction

17

Jaeggli and Saflr 1989). If the agreement inflection licenses pro in subject position in (27a), could we not say that the clitic licenses pro in object position in a comparable example without the overt direct object, such as (28)? (28)

Lo vimos. him we-saw 4 We saw him.'

The clitic lo gives information about the person, number and gender of the direct object, and hence, just like the subject agreement, permits the content of a putative object pro to be recovered. On this view (28) is to (27a) for the object as (27a) is to (29) for the subject: (29)

Nosotros lo vimos a Guille. we him saw A Guille 'We saw Guille.'

In other words, pro can alternate with an overt DP in a subject or object position, as long as there is some morphological marker to permit recovery of its content. At least functionally, then, lo is acting just like an agreement inflection on this kind of analysis. This leads naturally to the suggestion that, at least in languages where clitic doubling is tolerated, it may be correct to regard clitics as a kind of Agr. There are various properties, however, that distinguish clitics from agreement inflections. First, clitics do not condition morphological variation in their hosts, while agreement morphemes may do this (see Zwicky and Pullum 1983). Second, agreement marking is always obligatory, while clitics are optional. This is true in the case of Spanish direct objects just given: lo can be dropped in (29), but the agreement marking on the verb cannot (although, perhaps significantly, lo cannot be dropped where the object is a strong pronoun: *(Lo) vimos a el 'We saw him'). Third, as we have just mentioned, some clitics prohibit doubling, but agreement almost always allows it. The Celtic languages constitute potentially significant counterexamples to the last two claims: certain clitics are just as obligatory as agreement marking in these languages, and subject agreement is in complementary distribution with overt non-pronominal subject DPs - see section 3.8 and the contributions by Adger, Duffield and Roberts and Shlonsky. Afinalissue connected with clitics stems from these last considerations. What is the correct derivation of clitics? We mentioned above that Kayne (1975) proposed a clitic-placement transformation. Although the details of this operation should be revised (it has become clear that French object clitics do not left-adjoin to V but to a functional category), the basic idea that syntactic clitics undergo syntactic movement is attractive for several reasons. First, it accounts for the complementary distribution of clitics and direct object DPs (this argument clearly falls foul of the clitic-doubling phenomenon, but is valid for French).

18

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

Second, clitic placement obeys standard conditions on movement, such as the Specified Subject Condition (SSC). The SSC prevents movement of certain classes of elements across a subject. French paradigms like the following indicate that clitic movement is subject to the SSC: (30)

a. Jean a laisse Pierre parler a Marie. Jean has let P. speak to M. b. Jean l'a laisse lui parler. J. him-has let to-her talk 'J, let him talk to her.' c. *Jean lui a laisse Pierre parler. J. to him has let P. speak

In (30c) clitic placement would move lui over the subject of the embedded clause, in violation of the SSC. If we assume that clitics are derived by movement, we can account for the impossibility of this example. Third, clitic objects trigger participle agreement while in situ objects do not (in some varieties of French): (31)

a. Jean a peint(*e) la porte J. has painted( + FEM) the door(FEM) b. Jean Fa peint*(e). J. it(FEM) has painted( + FEM) 'John has painted it.'

This can be accounted for if we assume, following Kayne (1989a), that the clitic must transit through SpecAgrOP and hence triggers object agreement. The agreement is thus a regular case of Specifier-head agreement, analogous to standard subject-verb agreement (which takes place at the AgrSP level; see section 2.2). On the other hand, certain considerations speak for a base-generation approach. First, there is the existence of clitic doubling of the type described above. Second, even in languages like French which lack clitic doubling we find clitics that are not readily linked to a grammatical function. One example is the ethical dative, as in the following (the example and the idiomatic translation are from Sportiche 1992:18): (32)

Je t'acheterais un cadeau a Pierre. I you-would-buy a present to P. 'I tell ya, I would buy P. a present.'

It is unclear what a plausible launching-site for clitic placement of te would be in this case. If clitic placement is a movement operation, we can ask what kind of movement operation it is. An influential proposal is that clitics are Ds, like other kinds of pronoun, heading DPs of their own. In that case, clitic movement could be A-movement (as proposed in Kayne 1975; the argument based on SSC given

Introduction

19

above depends on this idea), A'-movement (this is plausible to the extent that clitics move to adjoined positions - see Chomsky 1981) or head movement, that is, D-movement (or Agr-movement - see above and section 3.8). In the last case, however, we need to explain (a) how clitics are subject to the SSC, since this constraint does not apply to head movement; (b) why clitic movement appears to violate the Head Movement Constraint, since, if it moves from object position to a functional head, it 'skips' V; (c) how clitic movement triggers participle agreement. All of these questions can be answered if we treat clitic movement as a combination of A-movement and D-movement - see Sportiche (1988). While such an analysis may work for Romance, it is not clear whether it is appropriate for Celtic - see section 3.8.

3 Some issues in Celtic syntax Having introduced the basic approach and some of the main theoretical ideas assumed by the chapters in this volume, we turn now to the syntax of the Celtic languages. In this section, we focus on areas of syntax with which the following chapters are concerned, and in the process introduce the chapters. In the next section, we consider some further features. We will concentrate on three languages: Welsh, Breton and Irish. Scots Gaelic is in most respects like Irish. Hence, we will largely ignore it. 3.1 VSO clauses The most discussed feature of the Celtic languages is their VSO clause structure, and this is something that a number of the chapters in this volume are concerned with. All the languages have VSO as their normal order in root and subordinate finite clauses of all kinds. The following illustrate VSO root clauses. (33)

(34)

(35)

Gwelai Emrys ddraig. would-see Emrys dragon 'Emrys would see a dragon.' Email Yann war an hent. is Yann on the road 'Yann is on the road.' Bheadh se ann. would-be he there 'He would be there.'

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

We will see later that there are important complications in the case of Breton. In early work, the central question was: is the VSO order basic or is it derived through a V-fronting process? The VSO order was assumed to be basic in Awbery

20

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(1976) and McCloskey (1979). However, works such as Jones and Thomas (1977), Emonds (1981) and Harlow (1981) argued in favour of a V-fronting analysis and within transformational approaches this analysis is generally accepted. For Harlow (1981), example (33) has something like the following structure: Welsh

(36)

Gwelodd

Emrys

t

ddraig

In more recent work in which a more complex picture of clause structure is assumed (see section 2.2), the main questions have been: where do V and the subject appear in VSO clauses? and how does V-fronting in Celtic VSO clauses compare with V-movement in verb-second languages such as German and certain SVO languages such as French? A priori, there are a number of possible analyses for VSO clauses. One possibility is that V appears in C, as it is generally assumed to do in verb-second languages. This is proposed for Irish in Stowell (1989) and Doherty (1992). This would give the following structure for (33): Welsh

(37)

gwelodd

Emrys

ddraig

However, as noted by Guilfoyle (1990) and Bobaljik and Carnie (this volume), this seems implausible given that the Celtic languages have VSO order not only in main clauses but also in subordinate clauses. The following illustrate: (38)

Dywedodd Megan y gwelai Emrys ddraig. said Megan PRT would-see Emrys dragon 'Megan said Emrys would see a dragon.'

(Welsh)

Introduction (39)

(40)

21

Gouzout a ran eman Yann war an hent. know PRTdo.lsG is Yann on the road 4 I know Yann is on the road.' Shil me go mbeadh se ann. thought I PRT would-be he there 'I thought he would be he there.'

(Breton)

(Irish)

In contrast, the main verb-second languages only have verb-second order in main clauses. (There are two exceptions, Yiddish and Icelandic; see the discussion in section 2.2.) McCloskey (forthcoming) argues on the basis of preposed adverbials that verbs are in I in Irish. He observes that preposed adverbials precede the verb in subordinate clauses. The following illustrates:

(41)

Deiridis an cheadNollaig eile go dtiocfadh se anios. they-used-to-say the first Christmas other PRT would-come he up 'They used to say that next Christmas he would come up.'

On the assumption that such adverbials are adjoined to IP, the verb must be in I. It is possible to maintain that V is in Infl in VSO clauses given the VP-internal subject hypothesis outlined in section 2.2. It is possible to assume that V is in Infl, as it is in French and certain other languages, and that it is followed by the subject because subjects, unlike in SVO languages, remain within VP. It is possible, then, to propose something like the following structure for (33): Welsh

Gwelodd

Emrys

ddraig

This is similar to the analysis that is proposed for Welsh in Rouveret (1990), and similar analyses are proposed for Irish in Guilfoyle (1990) and McCloskey (1991b). Within such an analysis, one can claim that subjects remain in VP because case is assigned under government (Guilfoyle 1990; Koopman and Sportiche 1991) or because the N-features of I are weak so that the subject does not have to move to SpecIP until LF (Chomsky 1993).

22

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

It seems, however, that this analysis is too simple at least for Welsh and Irish. In both languages, there is evidence that subjects are outside VP. The evidence comes from sentences in which subjects precede elements which it is plausible to assume are outside VP. In Welsh, we have negative sentences like the following: (43)

Welodd Emrys ddim draig. saw Emrys NEG dragon 'Emrys didn't see a dragon.'

(Welsh)

Here, we see that the subject precedes the negative particle ddim. If we assume that ddim is outside VP, the subject must be too since it precedes ddim. In Irish, we have examples like the following highlighted in McCloskey (this volume): (44)

Nior shaotaigh Eoghan ariamh pingin. NEG earned Owen ever penny 'Owen never earned a penny.'

(Irish)

Here, the subject precedes the adverb ariamh 'ever'. If this is outside VP, the subject must be too. The split-Infl clause structure discussed in section 2.2 offers a solution to this problem. As Rouveret (1991) notes, it is possible for V to be in one functional head position and the subject to be in the specifier position of a lower functional head. If we assume just two functional heads instead of Infl, Fl and F2, this would give the following structure for (33): Welsh

F1P

(45)

gwelodd

Emrys

t

t

V,

DP

t

ddraig

We would have a similar structure for (35). What about Breton? Here, we may have a rather different situation. In Breton, a subject follows the counterpart of ddim, ket, as (46) illustrates. (46)

Ne lenn ket ar vugale levriou. PRT read not the children books 'The children do not read books.'

(Breton)

It looks, then, as if subjects may be inside VP in Breton.

Introduction

23

Further arguments that subjects are outside VP in Irish are presented by Bobaljik and Carnie and McCloskey in the present volume. Bobaljik and Carnie argue that objects of Irish VSO clauses are outside VP. If this is right, subjects must also be outside VP. McCloskey argues that subjects cannot be in SpecVP because a DP complement must move into subject position in unaccusatives and perfective passives and such obligatory movement must be to the specifier position of a functional head. This line of argument suggests that subjects may also be outside VP in Breton since Breton also seems to have obligatory movement to subject position in unaccusatives and passives. The obvious question about the structure in (45) is: what exactly are Fl and F2? The obvious answer is that one is T(ense) and the other AgrS. It is not at all obvious, however, which is which. For Welsh, Rouveret (1991) and Hendrick (1991) argue that the higher head is AgrS, but Tallerman (1993a) argues that it is T. For Irish, Duffleld (1990) and McCloskey (this volume) argue that the higher head is T, but Bobaljik and Carnie (this volume) assume that it is AgrS. McCloskey's argument that T is above AgrS in Irish involves the properties of unaccusatives. He points out that Irish has unaccusatives in which the single argument of the verb is a subject, like (47), and unaccusatives in which the single argument is the object of a preposition, like (48). (47)

(48)

Mheadaigh mo shaibhreas. increased ISG wealth 'My wealth increased.' Mheadaigh ar mo shaibhreas. increased on ISG wealth 'My wealth increased.'

However, Irish has no unaccusatives like French // est arrive trois hommes Three men have arrived', in which the single argument is a complement of the verb. He notes that the situation is similar with perfective passives. He argues that the data can be explained on the assumption that Irish does not have expletives. He proposes that this is because TP is above AgrSP in Irish and expletives are associated with SpecTP, a position which is never overtly realized in Irish.

3.2 Breton VAuxSO clauses All the Celtic languages have VSO finite clauses, but Breton also has a distinctive VAuxSO clause type. This is the main focus of Borsley, Rivero and Stephens' chapter. The following are typical examples. (49)

Lennet en deus Yann al levr. read 3SG.M has Yann the book 4 Yann has read the book.'

(Breton)

24

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(50)

Lenn a ra Anna al levr. read PRT does Anna the book 'Anna reads the book.'

(Breton)

They argue that it involves long head movement', a process which moves a V directly to C° across certain intervening heads. They point out that this process is found in a variety of languages, including Bulgarian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian and Old Spanish. The following illustrate its operation in Bulgarian and Czech. (51)

(52)

Procel sum knigata. read have. 1 SG book-the 'I have read the book.' Koupil jsem knihy. bought have.lsG books 'I have bought books.'

They argue that long head movement is one way of licensing Tense and that it is a last-resort process that does not apply if Tense is not licensed in some other way. This accounts for the fact that it does not apply in subordinate clauses, negatives and sentences where SpecCP is filled by a topic or a w/j-phrase. In all these clause types the verb follows the auxiliary (and precedes the subject). (53)

(54)

(55)

Lavaret he deus Anna [en deus lennet Tom al levr] said 3SG.F have Anna 3SG.M have read Tom the book 'Anna said Tom had read the book.' N' en deus ket lennet Tom al levr. NEG 3SG.M has NEG read Tom the book Tom has not read the book.' Al levr en deus lennet Tom. the book 3SG.M has read Tom Tom has read the book.'

(Breton)

(Breton)

(Breton)

They argue that the licensing conditions associated with Tense account for the fact that finite verbs and auxiliaries are generally impossible in initial position in root clauses. The copula in (34) is the main exception to this generalization. The following illustrate the general situation: (56)

(57)

*Lenn Anna al levr. read Anna the book 'Anna reads the book.' *En deus lennet Tom al levr. 3SG.M has read Tom the book Tom has read the book.'

(Breton)

(Breton)

Introduction

25

The following show that finite verbs like finite auxiliaries can appear in initial position in subordinate clauses, negatives and sentences where SpecCP is filled. (58)

(59) (60)

Al levr a lenn Anna. (Breton) the book PRT read Anna 'Anna reads the book.' Ne lennket Anna al levr. (Breton) NEG readNEG Anna the book 'Anna didn't read the book.' Gouzout a ran [e lenn Anna al levr] know PRT do.lsG PRT read Anna the book 4 1 know that Anna read the book.'

(Breton)

Here, then, we have some major differences between Breton and the other Celtic languages.

3.3 Clause-initial particles

All the Celtic languages have a variety of clause-initial particles in finite clauses, both root and subordinate. An important question here is whether these particles are complementizers or something else. Welsh has the following particles: (61)

Root affirmative Subordinating Interrogative Root negative Embedded negative 'Direct' relative 'Indirect' relative

fe, mi, y y a ni(d) na(d) a y

Perhaps the most important point to note here is that we have three different root affirmative particles, one of which is identical to the subordinating particle. Fe and mi are characteristic of spoken Welsh. Fe is used in South Wales and mi in North Wales. They are used very widely. Y, on the other hand, is only used with the present and imperfect of bod 'be', and only in Literary Welsh. The following illustrate these particles: (62)

(63)

Fe/mi welais i ddraig. PRT saw.lsG I dragon. 'I saw a dragon.' Fe/mi fydd ef ym Mangor. PRT will-be he in Bangor 'He will be in Bangor.'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

26

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(64)

Y mae ef ym Mangor. (Welsh) PRT is he in Bangor 'He is in Bangor.' A further point to note about Welsh is that it has distinct root and subordinate negative particles. These, however, are mainly a feature of Literary Welsh. In Colloquial Welsh only their mutation effects appear. Turning to Breton, we find the following, quite simple situation. (65)

Subordinating Interrogative Negative 'Direct' relative 'Indirect' relative

e hag-en ne a e

Unlike Welsh, Breton has no root affirmative particles. The negative particle, like its counterparts in Welsh, is a feature of the written language. Irish has the most complex set of particles. Following Chung and McCloskey (1987), we can summarize the Irish situation as follows: (66) Subordinating Interrogative Root negative Embedded negative 'Direct' relative 'Indirect' relative

Non-past go an ni nach a a

Past gur ar nior nar a ar

The most important point to note here is that we have distinct non-past and past particles. Duffield (1990) sees this as evidence that Tense and not Agr is the first functional category below C in Irish. A further point to note is that like Breton, Irish has no root affirmative particles. There has been considerable debate about the status of these particles. For Welsh, Hendrick (1988) and Sadler (1988) assume that they are complementizers, while Harlow (1983) and Rouveret (1990) argue that they are part of a verbal complex. For Breton, Stephens (1982) argues that they are part of a verbal complex, but Hendrick (1988) assumes that they are complementizers, and Stump (1989) argues that negative ne is a complementizer but that a and e are not. For Irish, Chung and McCloskey (1987) argue that they are combinations of a complementizer and an Infl element, and Duffield (1990a) argues that they are realizations of separate C, T, Neg and Agr elements. McCloskey (forthcoming) argues that although they are basically complementizers, they occupy the Infl position on the surface as the result of a lowering process. As (41) shows, preposed adverbials precede preverbal particles. If preposed adverbials are adjoined to IP the particles must be in IP on the surface. If some of the particles

Introduction

27

are not complementizers in some of the languages, we will have certain subordinate clauses that cannot contain a complementizer. This situation arises anyway in Breton since no particle appears in affirmative subordinate clauses containing the 'have' auxiliary. The subordinate clause in (60) illustrates. One matter that we have not commented on is the appearance in all three languages of direct and indirect relative particles. We will return to these particles in section 4.1.

3.4 Clefting A notable feature of the Celtic languages is that they do not have SVO finite clauses, contrary to the statements of Greenberg (1963) about VSO languages. Stump (1984) argues that Breton examples like the following are SVO finite clauses: (67)

Ar vugale a lenn levriou. the children PRT read books The children read books.'

(Breton)

However, Borsley and Stephens (1989) show that the crucial clauses are in fact instances of topicalization or clefting. What this suggests is that the specifier position of the highest functional head below C is for some reason never overtly occupied in the Celtic languages (at least in finite clauses). Clefting is an important process in all the Celtic languages. The following illustrate: (68)

(69) (70)

Gafra weloddy dyn. (Welsh) goat PRT saw the man 'It was a goat that the man saw.' Levriou a lenn ar vugale. (Breton) books PRT read the children 'It's books that the children read.' Capall mor ban chonaic me (Irish) horse big white saw I 'It was a big white horse that I saw.'

Two chapters in the present volume deal (among other things) with cleft sentences in Welsh: Tallerman and Rouveret. Tallerman is concerned with the relation between cleft sentences like (71) and so-called abnormal sentences like (72). (71)

Y dynion a werthodd y ci. the men PRT sold the dog 'It was the men who sold the dog.'

(Welsh)

28

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(72)

Y dynion a werthasant y ci. the men PRT sold.3PL the dog The men sold the dog.'

(Welsh)

Abnormal sentences are obsolete but were an important feature of Middle Welsh. In both constructions a variety of constituents can appear in initial position, but when a subject occupies the initial position the verb shows no agreement in the cleft construction, but does show agreement in the abnormal construction. Tallerman argues that the former involves the movement of a constituent into SpecCP while the latter involves a constituent base-generated adjoined to CP. An important fact about cleft sentences is that they can appear as subordinate clauses introduced by the element mai (or in South Wales, taw). We have examples like the following: (73)

Dywedais i mai'r dynion a werthodd y ci. said.lsG I PRT-the men PRT sold the dog 'I said that it was the men that sold the dog.'

Tallerman argues that this element is a complementizer which unusually only takes a CP as its complement. She notes that Welsh also has an interrogative complementizer ai that appears to take a CP complement. (74)

Gofynodd Emrys ai Gwyn a welodd y ddraig. asked Emrys PRT Gwyn PRT saw the dragon 'Emrys asked if it was Gwyn that saw the dragon.'

(Welsh)

Breton has a similar interrogative complementizer, as Borsley, Rivero and Stephens note. (75)

(76)

N' ouzon ket ha Yann en deus lennet al NEG know.lsGNEG PRT Yann 3SG.M have read the 'I don't know whether Yann has read the book.' N' ouzon ket ha lennet en deus Yann al NEG know. ISG NEG PRT read 3SG.M have Yann the 'I don't know whether Yann has read the book.'

levr. (Breton) book levr. (Breton) book

Example (76) illustrates the one situation in which a non-finite verb can be moved to a pre-auxiliary position in a subordinate clause. Rouveret is concerned not only with ordinary cleft sentences but also with sentences in which some constituent appears in initial position followed immediately by a form of bod 'be' with no intervening complementizer. The following illustrate: (77)

Meddyg yw Emrys. doctor is Emrys 'Emrys is a doctor.'

(Welsh)

Introduction (78)

Glasyw'r mor. blue is-the sea The sea is blue.'

29 (Welsh)

Rouveret argues that the initial constituent, whether a subject or a non-subject, is in SpecCP and that the following form of bod is in C, hence the impossibility of a complementizer. In other words, he argues that Welsh has a class of verb-second sentences rather like those of German and other Germanic languages (see section 2.2). Among other pieces of evidence for this proposal he cites the fact that such clauses can appear as subordinate clauses introduced by mai. This suggests rather strongly that they are CPs and hence that the initial constituent is in SpecCP.

3.5 Non-finite clauses

We can look next at non-finite clauses. Here, all the Celtic languages have subjectinitial order, although Welsh also has a class of what look like verb-initial nonfinite clauses. Welsh and Breton are broadly similar in this area, while Irish is rather different. One point that we should note immediately is that non-finite verbs are traditionally referred to as verb-nouns. However, when they correspond to English non-finite verbs they are fairly ordinary non-finite verbs. They take the same proclitics as nouns, as the following illustrate: (79)

Ceisiodd Megan ei tried

(80) (81) (82)

weld (ef).

(Welsh)

Megan 3SG.M see he

'Megan tried to see him.' ei wraig(ef) (Welsh) 3SG.M wife he 'his wife' Gallout a raYanne welout. be-able PRT do Yann 3SG.M see 'Yann can see him.' e di

(Breton) (Breton)

3SG.M house

(83)

(84)

'his house' TaCathal i ndiaidh a mholadh. is Cathal after 3SG.M praise 'Cathal has praised it.' a mhac (Irish) 3SG.M son

'his son'

(Irish)

30

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

However, they differ from nouns in taking adverbs. In Welsh, we have the following contrasts: (85)

(86)

Dylai Megan ganu *(yn) hyfryd. ought Megan sing PRT pleasant 'Megan ought to sing pleasantly.' y swn (*yn) hyfryd the sound PRT pleasant 'the pleasant sound'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

In Welsh, adverbs are distinguished from attributive adjectives among other things by the preceding particle yn. This is obligatory in (85) but impossible in (86). Turning to Breton, we have the following data: (87)

(88)

a. EmanYann o tistrujin al lizher prim. is Yann PROG destroy the letter quick 'Yann is destroying the letter quickly.' b. *Eman Yann o tistrujin prim al lizher. is Yann PROG destroy quick the letter a. an distruj euzhus eus Jerusalem the destruction terrible of Jerusalem 'the terrible destruction of Jerusalem' b. *an distruj eus Jerusalem euzhus the destruction of Jerusalem terrible

(Breton)

(Breton)

In Breton, adverbs and attributive adjectives are formally identical, but they differ in their distribution. Adverbs normally follow the complements of the associated verb, but an attributive adjective immediately follows the associated noun and among other things precedes any complements. Finally, Irish is much like Welsh in this area. In Irish, adverbs are distinguished from attributive adjectives by the preceding particle go. This is obligatory in (89) and impossible in (90). (89)

(90)

Tase ag ceol *(go) binn. is he PROG sing PRT pleasant 'He is singing pleasantly.' an fonn (*go) binn the tune PRT pleasant 'the pleasant tune'

(Irish)

(Irish)

Non-finite verbs also differ from nouns in taking 'bare' DP objects. As we will see in section 3.7, nouns have complements marked with a preposition. For further discussion of the Welsh data, see Borsley (1993). All three Celtic languages have superficially subjectless non-finite clauses in both control and raising sentences. The former are illustrated in (91)—(93) and the latter in (94)-(96).

Introduction (91)

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

Ceisiodd Emrys weld y ddraig. tried Emrys see the dragon 'Emrys tried to see the dragon.' C'hoant en deus Yann da vont da Baris desire 3SG.M have Yann to go to Paris 'Yann wants to go to Paris.' Ba mhaithliom an teach a dhiol. I-would-like the house to sell 'I would like to sell the house.' Dechreuodd Megan ddarllen y llyfr. began Megan read the book 'Megan began to read the book.' Annaig a zeuas da vezan klanv. Annaig PRT came to be ill 'Annaig happened to be ill.' D'fheadfadh Ciaran a bheith breoite. can.coND Ciaran be(-FiN) ill 'Ciaran could be ill.'

31 (Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

An important difference between Irish and the other two languages is illustrated here. In Irish non-finite clauses, the object normally appears before the verb. This is illustrated by (93). Chung and McCloskey (1987) and McCloskey and Sells (1988) suggest that this order is the result of adjunction of the object to the predicate of the small clause. Bobaljik and Carnie (this volume) argue, however, that it is the result of movement to SpecAgrO. Adger (this volume) argues that object-verb order in Scots Gaelic is a result of the same process. Another notable feature of Irish is that it has sentences which appear to involve raising to a prepositional object position. The following is a relevant example: (97)

Thiocfadh le Ciaran teach a cheannach. come.coND with Ciaran house to buy 'Ciaran could buy a house.'

(Irish)

According to McCloskey (1984), Ciaran here is the underlying subject of a nonfinite clause, but the surface object of the preposition le 'with'. Stowell (1989) argues against this analysis, but the analysis is defended by McCloskey (this volume). All three Celtic languages have non-finite clauses with overt subjects. In Welsh and Breton, these are rather like English for-to clauses. The following illustrate: (98)

Disgwyliodd Emrys i Megan fynd i Fangor. expected Emrys to Megan go to Bangor 'Emrys expected Megan to go to Bangor.'

(Welsh)

32

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(99)

Mad eo d' ar vugale mont d' an aod. good is to the children go to the beach 'It's good for the children to go to the beach.'

(Breton)

It seems reasonable to assume that the prepositional elements / and a" assign case to the following subjects in these examples. Irish non-finite clauses with overt subjects look rather like so-called exceptional Case-marking clauses, e.g. Bill to be a genius in / consider Bill to be a genius. The following illustrates: (100)

Ba mhaith Horn iad Ciaran a fhostu. I-would-like them Ciaran hire(-FiN) 'I would like them to hire Ciaran.'

(Irish)

These clauses, however, are not restricted in their distribution in the way that exceptional Case-marking clauses are. McCloskey (1985) points out that they can appear as complements of nouns and adjectives, citing the following: (101)

(102)

Bheadh luchair air iad a bheith i lathair. (Irish) would-be joy on.3sG.M thembe(-FiN) present 'He would be delighted for them to be present.' B' eadoiche iad cruinniu aris (Irish) is improbable them assemble again 'It would be improbable that they would assemble again.'

He also notes that the subject of such a clause has accusative Case even when the clause is complement of a preposition that assigns genitive Case. He illustrates with the following, in which i ndiaidh 'after' is a preposition which assigns genitive Case: (103)

i ndiadh an pobal imeacht after the congregation( + ACC) leave(-FiN) 'after the congregation leaves/left'

(Irish)

Negated non-finite clauses take a rather different form in the three languages. Welsh has peidio a, literally 'cease with', after the subject. (104)

Disgwyliodd Emrys i Megan beidio a mynd i Fangor. expected Emrys to Megan cease with go to Bangor 'Emrys expected Megan not to go to Bangor.'

(Welsh)

Breton has the form nompas, calqued on French ne pas. (105)

Mad eo d' ar vugale nompas mont d' an aod. good is to the children NEG go to the beach 'It's good for the children not to go to the beach.'

(Breton)

Introduction

33

Irish has the element gan, which Chung and McCloskey (1987) argue is a complementizer. (106)

Ba mhaith Horn gan iad posadh ro-6g. I-would-like NEG them marry(-FiN) too-young 'I would like them not to marry too young.'

(Irish)

How exactly Celtic non-finite clauses should be analysed is far from clear. In all three languages, however, there is some evidence that the subject is outside VP. In Welsh, as we have seen, the subject of a non-finite clause precedes the negative element beidio. If we assume that negation originates outside VP then the subject must also be outside VP. When we turn to Breton, the fact that the subject of a non-finite clause precedes the negative element nompas suggests that it too is outside VP. It suggests in fact that subjects are in a higher position in non-finite clauses than in finite clauses given that subjects follow negative ket in finite clauses. What, then, of Irish? Chung and McCloskey (1987) argue that the subject of a non-finite clause is within the complement of Infl. However, if one accepts the view of Bobaljik and Carnie (this volume) that preverbal objects in non-finite clauses are in Spec AgrO, then subjects must also be outside VP in Irish. It seems reasonable to assume that / in (98) and d" in (99) assign Case to the following subjects. Borsley (1986) analyses the former as a prepositional complementizer like English for, and the same analysis is proposed for the latter in Hendrick (1988). Bobaljik and Carnie (this volume) suggest that the subjects of Irish non-finite clauses are Case-marked by an empty prepositional complementizer. If the subjects of non-fmite clauses are assigned Case by preceding prepositional complementizers, then it may be that they occupy the specifier position of the functional head immediately below C. If so, they will be in a higher position than in finite clauses. It is possible, however, that / and d" are not in C but in Agr. If so, at least the Welsh subjects might be in the same position in nonfinite clauses as finite clauses. We noted at the outset that Welsh also has a class of what look like verb-initial non-fmite complements. The following illustrate: (107)

(108)

Credaf fod Emrys yn dod. believe. ISG be Emrys in come 'I believe Emrys is coming.' Dywedodd Megan fod Emrys yn hwyr. said Megan be Emrys in late 'Megan said Emrys was late.'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

These clauses allow just one verb, bod 'be'. Although they appear to be non-fmite, Awbery (1976) pointed out that there is evidence that they are in fact finite. Examples (107) and (108) contain the non-finite form bod where we would expect

34

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

either a present or an imperfect form. These forms, which only bod has, cannot appear in affirmative declarative subordinate clauses, as the following illustrate: (109) (110)

*Credaf y mae believe. 1 SG PRT is *Dywedodd Megan said Megan

Emrys yn dod. Emrys in come yr oedd Emrys yn hwyr. PRT was Emrys in late

(Welsh) (Welsh)

We do, however, find present and imperfect forms of bod in negative declarative and interrogative subordinate clauses. Thus, we have the following: (111)

(112)

(113)

(114)

Credaf nad ydyw Emrys yn dod. believe. ISG NEG is Emrys in come 'I believe Emrys is not coming.' Dywedodd Megan nad oedd Emrys yn hwyr. said Megan NEG was Emrys in late 'Megan said Emrys was not late.' Yr wyf i 'n gofyn a ydyw Emrys yn dod. PRT am I in ask Q is Emrys in come 'I am asking if Emrys is coming.' Gofynnodd Megan a oedd Emrys yn hwyr. asked Megan Q was Emrys in late 'Megan asked whether Emrys was late.'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

This suggests fairly strongly that the subordinate clauses in (107) and (108) are really finite despite appearances. It appears that certain other Welsh subordinate clauses which appear to be non-finite are really finite. Consider the following: (115)

Dywedodd Megan i Emrys fyndi Gaergybi. said Megan to Emrys go to Holyhead 'Megan said Emrys went to Holyhead.'

(Welsh)

Sadler (1988) points out that we have not (116) but (117) as a related example with a negated subordinate clause. (116)

(117)

*Dywedodd Megan i Emrys said Megan to Emrys 'Megan said Emrys didn't go Dywedodd Megan nad aeth said Megan NEG went

beidio a mynd i Gaergybi. (Welsh) cease with go to Holyhead to Holyhead.' Emrys i Gaergybi. (Welsh) Emrys to Holyhead

She also notes that these subordinate clauses, unlike ordinary non-finite subordinate clauses, can be readily conjoined with an ordinary finite subordinate clause. Thus, there are quite good reasons for thinking that these are really finite clauses.

Introduction

35

3.6 Participial constructions We can turn now to participial constructions. In fact, we have already considered a Breton participial construction exemplified by (49) and (53)—(55). More characteristic of Celtic, however, are participial constructions involving a non-finite verb preceded by what we will call a particle. We can look first at what we will call the progressive construction. Here, all three languages have a non-finite verb preceded by a particle. The following illustrate: (118)

(119)

(120)

Mae Rhiannon yn cysgu. is Rhiannon PRT sleep 'Rhiannon is sleeping.' Emanva breur o vont a-hed an hent. is ISG brother PRT go along the road 'My brother is going along the road.' Ta me ag togail teach ur. are I PRT build house new 'I am building a new house.'

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

An important point to note here is that the Irish example in (120) has verb-object order and not the object-verb order characteristic of ordinary non-finite clauses. Perhaps the main question to ask about these constructions is: what are the particles? In all three languages, they look rather like prepositions, but in all three languages there are grounds for thinking that they are not. Welsh yn resembles a preposition meaning 'in', but it differs from the preposition in a number of ways. Most notably, it triggers no mutation whereas the preposition triggers so-called nasal mutation. The following illustrate: (121)

(122)

Mae ef yn darllen y papur. is he PRT read the paper 'He is reading the paper.' Mae ef yn Nolgellau. is he in Dolgellau 'He is in Dolgellau.'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

In (121), we have the basic form of a verb. In contrast, in (122), we have a mutated form of the name Dolgellau. Breton o is related historically to a preposition ouzh 'from'. It is clear, however, that it is a quite different element. It triggers the so-called mixed mutation whereas the preposition triggers no mutation. The following illustrate: (123)

o

vont go 'going'

PRT

(Breton)

36

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(124)

ouzh mogerenn an ti (Breton) from wall the house 'from the wall of the house'

In (123), vont is a mutated form of the verb, the basic form being mont. In (124), mogerenn is a basic form. Irish ag appears to be identical to a preposition meaning 'at', but the written language is misleading here. The particle is in fact pronounced differently from the preposition. It is realized as [a] before consonants, [g] before a back vowel, and [g'] (a voiced palatal stop) before a front vowel. The preposition has just one allomorph, [eg'] in most dialects. It is doubtful, then, whether these particles are prepositions. Note, however, that Rouveret (this volume) assumes that Welsh yn is a preposition. If these particles are not prepositions, what are they? One possibility is that they are realizations of a functional category Asp(ect) (Hendrick 1991). If they are, we might have something like the following structure for (118): (125)

F1P

Asp

VP V

Rhiannon

e

t

yn

t

cysgu

We can turn now to what I will call the perfective construction. Here, again, Welsh and Irish have a non-finite verb preceded by a particle. The following illustrate: (126)

(127)

Mae Rhiannon wedi mynd adref. is Rhiannon after go home 'Rhiannon has gone home.' Ta me i ndiaidh Eoghan a fheiceail. is I after Owen see(-FiN) 'I have just seen Owen.'

(Welsh)

(Irish)

Notice that the Irish example has OV order just like an ordinary non-finite clause. It seems clear that the particles in these examples are prepositions. Elsewhere, the same items introduce ordinary non-finite clauses with an overt subject. The following illustrate:

Introduction (128)

(129)

37

wedi i Megan weld y ddraig after to Megan see the dragon 'after Megan saw the dragon' i ndiaidh an pobal imeacht after the congregation leave(-FiN) 'after the congregation leave/left'

(Welsh)

(Irish)

It looks, then, as if these constructions may involve a preposition taking a fairly ordinary non-finite clause. Unlike Welsh and Irish, Breton has a perfective construction containing a participle. We have already seen examples in (49) and (53)—(55). The following are two further examples: (130)

(131)

Kolleten deus ar martolod e gasketen. lost 3SG.M have the sailor 3SG.M cap 'The sailor has lost his cap.' Nijet eo al labous kuit. flown is the bird away 'The bird has flown away.'

(Breton)

(Breton)

These examples show that the Breton perfective construction can contain a form of 'have' or a form of 'be'. Which one appears seems to be determined by semantic considerations, 'have' being used when an event is referred to and 'be' when a state is referred to. We can look finally at passive constructions in the three languages. The Welsh passive is illustrated by the following: (132)

Cafodd Gwyn ei daro gan Emrys. got Gwyn 3SG.M hit with Emrys 'Gwyn was hit by Emrys.'

(Welsh)

The point to note here is that the non-finite verb is preceded by a clitic agreeing with the subject. Irish also has a passive construction which is rather like the Welsh construction. McCloskey (1983) calls this the progressive passive. The following illustrates: (133)

Ta teach a thogail aige. is house 3SG.M build at.3sG.M 'A house is being built by him.'

(Irish)

As in the Welsh construction, the non-finite verb is preceded by a clitic agreeing with the subject. Unlike Welsh, however, but like Breton, Irish has a passive participle. This is used in what McCloskey (1983) calls the perfective passive, which is illustrated by the following:

38

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(134)

Ta an teach togtha acu. is the house built at.3PL They have built a house.'

(Irish)

Breton only has passives with a passive participle. The following illustrates: (135)

Chanchet e oa e vuhez. changed PRTwas 3SG.M life 'His life was changed.'

(Breton)

3.7 Nominals We can turn now to the central features of Celtic nominal phrases. Here, there are various points to note. All the Celtic languages have a definite article but only Breton has an indefinite article. In all the Celtic languages, the definite article can co-occur with a demonstrative element, which appears after the noun. Thus, we have data like the following: (136)

(137)

(138)

y dyn hwn/hwnnw the man this that 'this/that man' al levr -man/-se the book this that 'this/that book' an teach seo / sin the house this that 'this/that house'

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

In all the Celtic languages, adjectives generally follow the noun, whereas numerals precede. The following illustrate: (139)

(140)

(141)

(142)

pentrefbach village small 'a small village' levr bihan book small 'a small book' cat mor cat big 'a big cat' dau afal two apples 'two apples'

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

(Welsh)

Introduction (143)

(144)

daou levr two book 'two books' da chat two cat 'two cats'

39 (Breton)

(Irish)

All the languages have a few adjectives which appear prenominally, for example hen 'old', gwahanol 'different' in Welsh, gozh 'old' in Breton and priomh 'chief in Irish. In all the Celtic languages, possession is expressed by a bare postnominal DP. The following illustrate: (145)

(146)

(147)

brawd yr athro brother the teacher 'the teacher's brother' levr ar paotr book the man 'the man's book' pictiur Chathail picture Cathal(GEN) 'Cathal's picture'

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

Where a noun has both a possessor and a complement, the complement follows the possessor. (148)

(149)

(150)

lun Emrys o Megan picture Emrys of Megan 'Emrys's picture of Megan' karantez Lenaig evit ar beorien love Lenaig for the poor 'Lenaig's love for the poor' pictiur Chathail den chapall picture Cathal(GEN) of-the horse 'Cathal's picture of the horse.'

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Irish)

As noted in section 3.5, nominal complements are marked by a preposition. Possessors are often seen as subjects of nominal phrases. Thus we have nounsubject-complement order within nominal phrases in much the same way as we have verb-subject-complement order in finite clauses. In other words, the form of nominal phrases echoes that of finite clauses. This is the case not only in the Celtic languages but also in the Semitic languages, where we have examples like the following from Syrian Arabic:

40

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(151)

Sourt Salwa la Kamal picture Salwa of Kamal 'Salwa's picture of Kamal'

The relation between Celtic and Semitic nominals, or more precisely that between Irish and Hebrew and Maltese nominals, is the subject of Duffield's chapter. He proposes that nominal phrases are DPs in both Irish and Hebrew, but he proposes that there are two other functional heads between D and N: Agr and Num. He argues that nominal phrases have the same basic structure in all three languages and that the differences between them can be attributed to different derivational processes.

3.8 Agreement, clitics and null arguments We turn now to an area where the Celtic languages have some very distinctive properties, although, as Roberts and Shlonsky (this volume) point out, the Semitic languages are quite similar. In all the Celtic languages, finite verbs show no agreement with non-pronominal DPs. In Welsh, they show agreement with pronouns either overt or empty. The following illustrate: (152)

(153)

(154)

Gwelsan (nhw) ddraig. saw.3PL they dragon They saw a dragon.' Gwelodd y dynion ddraig. saw the men dragon 'The men saw a dragon.' *Gwelsan y dynion ddraig. saw.3PL the men dragon 'The men saw a dragon.'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

Here, we see that the third-person plural form of the verb is used with a thirdperson plural pronoun but the unmarked form of the verb with a plural nonpronominal DP. Some dialects of Breton seem to be like Welsh in this area. Others only allow agreement with an empty pronoun. We have data like the following: (155)

(156)

Levriou a lennont. books PRT read.3PL 'They read books.' Levriou a lenn ar vugale. books PRT read the children 'The children read books.'

(Breton)

(Breton)

Introduction (157)

41

*Levriou a lennont ar vugale. books PRT read.3PL the children T h e children read books.'

(Breton)

Speakers seem to vary as to whether they allow a pronoun in an example like (155). In Irish, agreement is only possible with an empty pronoun. The following illustrate: (158)

(159)

(160)

D'imiodar. lefUpL 'They left.' D'imighna fir. left the men T h e men left.' *D'imiodar na fir / siad. left.3pL the men they T h e men/they left.'

(Irish)

(Irish)

(Irish)

Here, we see that the third-person plural form of the verb cannot appear with an overt subject whether a non-pronominal DP or a pronoun. All the Celtic languages have inflected prepositions, which agree with their objects under the same conditions as finite verbs agree with their subjects. The following parallel (152)-(157): (161)

(162)

(163)

(164)

(165)

i 'r dynion to the men 'to the men' iddyn (nhw) to.3PL they 'to them' *iddyn y dynion to.3PL the men 'to the men' daYannig to Yannig 'to Yannig' dezhan

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Breton)

(Breton)

tO.3SG.M

(166)

'to him' *dezhan Yannig tO.3.SG.M

'to Yannig'

(Breton)

42

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(167)

ar na fir on the men 'on the men' orthu on.3PL 'on them' *orthu na fir / siad on.3PL the men they 'on the men/them'

(168)

(169)

(Irish)

(Irish)

(Irish)

It seems, then, that we have a single phenomenon here. Notice that the languages either allow or require an empty object with an inflected preposition. Thus, they are not just null-subject languages but null-argument languages, to use McCloskey and Hale's (1984) term. As we saw in section 3.5, both nouns and non-finite verbs in Celtic take proclitics. They appear under the same conditions as agreement morphology. We will just illustrate with nouns. (170)

ei

thy

(hi)

(Welsh)

3SG.F house she

(171)

(172)

(173)

'her house' ty Megan house Megan 'Megan's house' *ei thy Megan 3SG.F house Megan 'Megan's house' e dad

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Breton)

3SG.M father

(174)

(175)

(176)

'his father' tad Yannig father Yannig 'Yannig's father' *e dad Yannig 3SG.M father Yannig 'Yannig's father' a mhac

(Breton)

(Breton)

(Irish)

3SG.M son

(177)

'his son' mac Chathail son Cathal(GEN) 'Cathal's son'

(Irish)

Introduction (178)

*a

43

mhac Chathail /

3SG.M son

Cathal(GEN)

se

(Irish)

he

'Cathal's/his son' It seems, then, that clitics and agreement morphology constitute a single phenomenon. Welsh clitics are a major concern of Roberts and Shlonsky (this volume). They show that they are quite different from Romance clitics but quite like Semitic clitics. They argue that Welsh and Semitic clitics are Agr heads whereas Romance clitics are D's. Essentially the same view of Scots Gaelic clitics is advanced in Adger (this volume), and Duffield (this volume) takes a similar view of clitics in Irish, Hebrew and Maltese nominal phrases. 3.9 The copula Another notable feature of the Celtic languages is the complex array of forms that they have corresponding to the English verb be. In Irish, it is traditional to distinguish between a copula and a substantive verb. These are exemplified by (179) and (180), respectively. (179)

(180)

Is dochtuir Sean. COP doctor Sean 'Sean is a doctor.' Ta Sean ar muisce. be Sean drunk 'Sean was drunk.'

(Irish)

(Irish)

They differ in a number of ways. Most obviously, the copula takes a clause-final subject, whereas the substantive verb appears in VSO clauses like other verbs. The copula also takes an accusative subject whereas the substantive verb takes a nominative subject, again like other verbs. The copula takes predicates that express a permanent property, individual-level predicates in the terminology of Kratzer (1989), while the substantive verb takes predicates that express more transient properties, stage-level predicates in Kratzer's terms. The Irish copula is discussed at length by Doherty (1992), who argues that they involve the following structure:

44

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(181)

IP

subject COP

predicate

If this is right, Irish has finite clauses in which the specifier position of the first functional head below C is overtly filled, unlike typical finite clauses in the Celtic languages. Rouveret (this volume) argues that the distinction between individual- and stage-level predicates is also relevant to the Welsh copula. He is particularly concerned with the contrasting behaviour of the two third-person singular present-tense forms mae and yw. Mae cannot appear in negative or polar interrogative sentences and cannot have a definite DP as its complement. (182)

a. Mae Megan yn cysgu. (Welsh) is Megan in sleep 'Megan is sleeping.' b. Mae Megan yn ddiog. is Megan in lazy 'Megan is lazy.' c. Mae Megan yn athro is Megan in teacher 'Megan is a teacher.' d. *Ni mae Megan ddim yn cysgu. NEG is Megan NEG in sleep 'Megan isn't sleeping.' e. *A mae Megan yn cysgu? Q is Megan in sleep 'Is Megan sleeping?' f. *Mae Megan yn yr athro. is Megan in the teacher 'Megan is the teacher.'

Yw, on the other hand, cannot appear in simple affirmative declarative clauses. It is limited to negatives, polar interrogatives and the verb-second clauses referred to earlier. We have data like the following: (183)

a. *Yw Megan yn cysgu. is Megan in sleep 'Megan is sleeping.'

(Welsh)

Introduction

45

b. *Yw Megan yn ddiog. is Megan in lazy 'Megan is lazy.' c. *Yw Megan yn athro is Megan in teacher 'Megan is a teacher.' d. Nid yw Megan ddim yn cysgu. NEG is Megan NEG in sleep 'Megan isn't sleeping.' e. A yw Megan yn cysgu? Q is Megan in sleep 'Is Megan sleeping?' f. Yr athro yw Megan, the teacher is Megan 'Megan is the teacher.' Rouveret proposes that the particle yn creates stage-level predicates and that mae incorporates a locative adverbial clitic which is an operator at LF and can bind the spatio-temporal external argument characteristic of such predicates. Neg and Q can also bind this argument. Hence, mae does not occur when they are present. Hendrick argues against Rouveret's approach to the mae/yw distinction, and develops a very different approach drawing on recent proposals of Pesetsky's. These involve a Principle of Telegraph which deletes functional categories subject to a series of partially ordered constraints. He proposes that mae is inserted next to the particle y. This prevents it from appearing in negatives and polar interrogatives. He suggests that it is required to be at the left edge of AgrP in Literary Welsh, but at the left edge of CP in Colloquial Welsh. The latter requirement forces the deletion of y. Hendrick is also concerned with the distribution of another third-person present-tense form of the copula, sydd. This appears when a subject is extracted, as (186) illustrates: (184)

Rhys sydd yn athro Rhys is in teacher 'Rhys is a teacher.'

(Welsh)

Hendrick proposes that sydd licenses a following trace. An important feature of sydd is that it never co-occurs with the particle a, which normally appears when a subject is extracted. Hendrick proposes that both sydd and a are required to be on the left edge of CP, but that the sydd constraint is higher ranked than the a constraint. The result is that a is deleted to allow sydd to be at the left edge of CP. Hendrick also discusses the Breton copula. He argues that whereas the Welsh copula is a substantive element, the Breton copula is generally a grammatical element, a spell-out of tense and agreement features. In this connection, he

46

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

highlights the very different form of copula + predicate adjective sentences in the two languages. He notes, however, that Breton also has a substantive copula taking PP and progressive complements. Hendrick also discusses the form zo, which, like sydd, appears when a subject is extracted. (185)

Mona a zo brav. Mona PRTis fine 'Mona is fine.'

(Breton)

Unlike sydd, zo co-occurs with the particle a. Hendrick proposes that the particle licenses the following trace and that zo is the result of a low-level morphological rule.

3.10 The realization of negation One further interesting feature of the Celtic languages, with which a number of the chapters are concerned, is the realization of negation. As we have seen, both Welsh and Breton have two negative particles rather like French ne and pas. As we have also seen, subjects precede the Welsh counterpart of pas, ddim, but follow the Breton counterpart, ket. This suggests that subjects are in a higher position in Welsh than in Breton. However, some Welsh dialects are more like Breton. In Pembrokeshire Welsh, indefinite subjects always follow ddim and definite subjects optionally follow (see Awbery 1990). In Standard Welsh, only indefinite subjects of the copula follow ddim (which appears as dim). We have examples like the following: (186)

Does dim defaid yn y cae. NEG.is NEG sheep in the field There are no sheep in the field.'

(Welsh)

This fact is discussed in Rouveret's chapter. Irish does not have the two-part negation of Welsh and Breton, but Irish negation is of considerable interest, as Acquaviva's chapter shows. As Acquaviva discusses, Irish negation never takes the form of a 'negated quantifier' comparable to nobody or nothing. More generally, he points out, Irish lacks what Barwise and Cooper (1981) call monotone decreasing quantifiers, quantifiers like few, which have the property that when one appears in a subject truth is preserved if the predicate is replaced by another predicate denoting a smaller set. He argues that monotone decreasing quantifiers are not syntactic quantifiers but indefinites locally bound by a negative operator at LF. This means that NegP must be projected whenever a monotone decreasing quantifier is present. However, Italian data suggest that monotone decreasing quantifiers are incompatible with an overt Neg°. Acquaviva proposes that Irish lacks monotone decreasing quantifiers because Neg° is always lexically realized in Irish.

Introduction

47

4 Some further issues In section 3, we were concerned with aspects of Celtic syntax about which the chapters in this volume have quite a lot to say. We turn now to two further notable features of Celtic syntax about which the following chapters have little to say.

4.1 A-binding constructions A'-binding constructions such as relative clauses and w/z-questions are a particularly interesting feature of the Celtic languages. The constructions have broadly similar properties in all the Celtic languages although they are certainly not identical. In all the Celtic languages, they involve resumptive pronouns and two types of empty categories, one associated with agreement including clitics and another not associated with agreement, and in all the Celtic languages, they show interesting clause-initial particle alternations. Irish A'-binding constructions are studied in some detail in McCloskey (1979, 1990). McCloskey argues that empty categories associated with agreement are empty resumptive pronouns, while empty categories associated with agreement are traces. He shows that A'-binding involving traces but not A'-binding involving resumptive pronouns is subject to Subjacency. This means that resumptive pronouns are possible in many positions where traces are not possible. He shows that there is one position where a trace is possible but not a resumptive pronoun, the highest subject position below the binding operator. There is a variety of positions in which both traces and resumptive pronouns are possible. McCloskey is particularly concerned with the clause-initial particle alternations that occur in Irish A'-binding constructions. We saw earlier that the present-tense forms of the direct and indirect relative particles have the same form. They are both a. They differ, however, in that the direct particle triggers the mutation process known as lenition, while the indirect particle triggers the mutation process known as eclipsis. For this reason, McCloskey represents them as aL and aN, respectively. With traces, the direct particle appears everywhere between the binding operator and the trace, as schematized in (187) and illustrated in (188). (187) (188)

[ DP DP yaL... [s,aL ...*...]]]] an rud a shil me a duirt tu a dheanfa the thing PRT thought I PRT said you PRT do.coND.2sG 'the thing that I thought you said you would do'

(Irish) (Irish)

With resumptive pronouns, the indirect particle appears adjacent to the binding operator, but the ordinary subordinating particle appears everywhere else between the binding operator and the resumptive pronoun, as follows:

48

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(189) (190)

[ D P D P [ s , a N . . . y g o . . . ^ g o ...pro...}}}} an fear ar shil me go dtiocfadh se the man PRT thought I PRT come.coND he 'the man that I thought (he) would come'

(Irish) (Irish)

Alternatively, the indirect relative particle appears everywhere between the binding operator and the resumptive pronoun, as follows: (191) (192)

[ DP DP [SraN... [s,aN... an meid den dan the amount of-the poem 'as much of the poem as

[s,aN.. .pro...]]]] (Irish) ar mheas se a raibh feidhm leis PRT thought he PRT was use with.3sG.M he thought he needed'

McCloskey (1990) argues that the form of the particle in A'-binding constructions is determined by Spec-head agreement. In movement structures, there is an empty operator in the topmost SpecCP and traces in any intermediate SpecCPs. In nonmovement structures, there is an empty operator in the topmost SpecCP and empty operators may also occur in intermediate SpecCPs. He proposes that empty operators and intermediate traces have the same value for the features ibanaphoric and ipronominal as the associated traces and resumptive pronouns. This entails that empty operators and intermediate traces in movement construction are [-anaphoric, -pronominal], while empty operators in resumptive pronoun constructions are [-anaphoric, + pronominal]. The A'-binding constructions of the other Celtic languages have received rather less attention than those of Irish. For Welsh, Sadler (1988) argues that empty categories associated with agreement are empty resumptive pronouns. However, Hendrick (1988) argues that such empty categories are traces and that the associated agreement is required by the Empty Category Principle (ECP). Welsh and Breton A'-binding constructions are quite similar to Irish A'-binding constructions, but there are some important differences. Most notably, we have certain affirmative-negative contrasts in Welsh and Breton, which are not found in Irish. Consider, for example, the following: (193)

(194)

(195)

y dynion a welodd ddraig the men PRT saw dragon 'the men that saw a dragon' y dynion na welsan ddraig the men NEG saw.3PL dragon 'the men that didn't see a dragon' ar vugale a lenne al levriou the children PRT read the books 'the children that read the books'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Breton)

Introduction (196)

49

ar vugale ne lennent ket al levriou the children PRT read.3PL NEG the books 'the children that didn't read the books'

(Breton)

In (193) and (195) we have relativization of a subject in an affirmative relative clause, while in (194) and (196) we have relativization of a subject in a negative relative clause. In (193) and (195) the verb shows no agreement, but in (194) and (195) there is agreement. There is no such contrast in Irish, as the following illustrate: (197)

(198)

na daoine a bhuail an cu (Irish) the men PRT struck the dog 'the men that struck the dog' na daoine nar bhuail an cu (Irish) the men NEG struck the dog 'the men that didn't strike the dog'

For some recent discussion of these contrasts, see Ouhalla (1993). There is much more that could be said about A'-binding constructions. We will note just one point. The particles that appear in relative clauses also appear in clefts and w/*-questions, in which SpecCP is overtly filled. If these particles are complementizers, we must conclude that the Celtic languages have no constraint against having both an overt complementizer and an overt occupant of SpecCP.

4.2 Mutation One of the most distinctive features of the Celtic languages is their so-called mutation systems, systems of morphophonological alternations affecting initial consonants. The following Welsh examples provide a striking illustration: (199)

a. tad 'father' c. dy dad 'your(sG) father'

b. fy nhad 'my father' d. ei thad 'her father'

(Welsh)

Welsh has three sets of mutations, which means that some words have four different initial consonants. Breton has five, and Irish has two. Mutation is typically triggered by some item immediately preceding the affected constituent. A variety of lexical items are triggers. The examples in (199) show that proclitics can trigger mutation. Example (200) shows that some prepositions trigger mutation, (201) shows that some numerals do, and (202) shows that the predicative particle yn does. (In each case the mutated form is in bold and the basic form given in parentheses.)

50

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

(200)

i Fangor (Bangor) to Bangor 'to Bangor' dau fachgen (bachgen) two boy 'two boys' Mae Gwyn yn feddyg (meddyg) is Gwyn in doctor 'Gwyn is a doctor.'

(201)

(202)

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

It is possible for a whole class of lexical items to trigger mutation. Thus, in Welsh, all feminine singular nouns trigger mutation on a following adjective. We have contrasts like the following: (203)

a. cath fawr (mawr) cat big 'a big cat' b. ci mawr dog big 'a big dog'

(Welsh)

A further important point to note is that mutation can be triggered by an empty category. Consider, for example, the following: (204)

Welais i ddim draig. (gwelais) saw.lsG I NEG dragon 'I didn't see a dragon.'

(Welsh)

Here, it seems reasonable to assume that the mutation is triggered by an empty counterpart of the negative particle ni referred to in sections 3.3 and 3.10. What exactly is mutation? It has sometimes been suggested that it is a manifestation of Case. For example, Zwicky (1984) suggests that the contrast between the mutated object in (205a) and the unmutated object in (205b) represents a contrast between accusative Case and genitive Case. (205)

a. Gwelodd y dyn gi (ci) saw the man dog 'The man saw a dog.' b. Mae'r dyn wedi gweld ci is-the man after see dog 'The man has seen a dog.'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

There is, however, a very important difference between mutation and case. As Harlow (1989) points out, a moved w/z-phrase inherits Case from its trace, but a

Introduction

51

moved constituent does not inherit mutation from its trace. Thus, the w/z-phrase in the following is unmutated: (206)

Pwy a welodd y dyn? who PRT saw the man 'Who did the man see?'

(Welsh)

Hence, it seems very unlikely that mutation can be seen as a manifestation of Case. The mutation in (205a) is particularly interesting. Harlow (1989) argues that this mutation is triggered not by a preceding lexical item but by a preceding DP. He suggests that the mutation in the following has the same source: (207)

(208)

Mae yna fuwch yn yr ardd. (buwch) is there cow in the garden There is a cow in the garden.' cyn i Emrys fynd i Aberystwyth (mynd) before to Emrys go to Aberystwyth 'before Emrys went to Aberystwyth'

(Welsh)

(Welsh)

Revising and extending Harlow's proposal, Borsley and Tallerman (1996) argue that all phrases trigger mutation under certain conditions. If either of these proposals is along the right lines, they add to the evidence that mutation is not a manifestation of Case given that Case is normally assigned by heads.

5 Conclusion

We hope that the foregoing remarks will provide an adequate background to the chapters that follow. We believe that these chapters testify both to the intrinsic interest of the Celtic languages and to their relevance for current theorizing.

Notes We would like to thank the British Academy and the Welsh Department of the University of Wales, Bangor, for help in funding the conference on which this collection is based. We would also like to thank Janig Stephens and Cathair O Dochartaigh for help with the Breton and Irish data, respectively. The straightforward implication that a language allows inversion only if it has the French-style orders in (la), (2a), (3a) does not hold. The Mainland Scandinavian languages - Swedish, Danish and Norwegian - are verb-second in root clauses, i.e. root clauses feature inversion of subject and verb when a non-subject comes first, and pattern like English with respect to the Pollock-Emonds tests in embedded clauses (Platzack 1987; Holmberg and Platzack 1991; Vikner 1994). If at least some verb-second clauses

52

Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts

involve V-to-I movement, as proposed by Travis (1984) and Zwart (1993), then the generalization can be maintained. 3 We give the schema in the form which derives specifier-head-complement order; this order is the only one relevant for Celtic, and, if Kayne (1995) is correct, may be the only one that is available at all.

1

Long head movement in Breton

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

1 Introduction

A notable feature of Breton is sentences in which a non-finite verb of some kind appears in initial position followed by an auxiliary and a subject (or if there is no overt subject whatever complement(s) the non-finite verb requires).1 The following is a typical example: (1)

Lennet en deus Yann al levr. read 3SG.M has Yann the book 4 Yann has read the book.'

Sentences of this kind are not found in the other Celtic languages or in the most intensively studied non-Celtic languages. Not surprisingly, therefore, they have figured quite prominently in discussions of Breton syntax. In this chapter, we will argue that these sentences are the product of long head movement, a process which moves a verb directly to C over certain intervening heads. This process has previously been identified in Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian, Rumanian, Old Spanish and European Portuguese before the twentieth century (see Rivero 1991, 1994, Lema and Rivero 1989a, 1989b, 1991). We will show that Breton sentences like (1) have all the properties of similar sentences in these languages. It seems, then, that Breton is another language with long head movement. This is of interest for two fairly obvious reasons. Firstly, it means that long head movement is not limited to the Slavonic and Romance families. Secondly, since Breton is a VSO language, it means that long head movement can occur in a VSO language. Breton long head movement is also of interest because it appears to be motivated by a rather different constraint from that which motivates it in the other languages in which it occurs. We will argue, however, following Rivero (1993), that the same constraint is operative in Breton and the other languages. We will also argue, following Rivero (1991) and especially Roberts (1994a) that the Breton data require a distinction between two types of heads, and a version of the ECP sensitive to this distinction. Breton provides two apparent problems for the conception of long head movement developed in earlier work. It is suggested in this work that auxiliaries 53

54

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

fall into two mutually exclusive classes: functional auxiliaries, which may license long head movement, and lexical auxiliaries, which may license VP-preposing. Breton appears to have an auxiliary which licenses both. We will argue, however, that appearances are misleading here and that there are in fact two different auxiliaries. It is also argued in earlier work that functional auxiliaries do not impose semantic restrictions on their complements. Breton appears to have auxiliaries which license long head movement and hence must be functional but which impose semantic restrictions on their complements. We leave this problem for further research. The chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the Breton sentences and discuss in a preliminary way how they should be analysed. Then, in section 3, we summarize earlier work on long head movement and argue that the process occurs in Breton. In section 4, we consider various analytic questions that arise about Breton long head movement. In section 5, we look at the two apparent problems. Finally, in section 6, we summarize the chapter.

2 Verb + auxiliary sentences It is fairly well established that Breton is a VSO language. It has VSO order in all types of clauses, and SVO clauses appear to be instances of topicalization (see Anderson and Chung 1977; Anderson 1981; and especially Borsley and Stephens 1989). However, an important feature of Breton is sentences which are not VSO but VAuxSO. Example (1) illustrates, and so do the following: (2)

(3)

Lennet e oa al levr gant Yann. read PRT was the book by Yann The book was read by Yann.' Lenn a ra Anna al levr. read PRT does Anna the book 'Anna reads the book.'

In (1), we have a past participle followed by a perfect auxiliary. In (2), we have a passive participle followed by a passive auxiliary. (As in English, the passive participle is identical in form to the past participle but has different syntactic properties.) Finally, in (3), we have the basic non-finite form of the verb, traditionally known as a verb-noun, followed by a counterpart of English auxiliary do. As we have said, such sentences have had considerable attention in the literature on Breton syntax. How, then, should sentences like (l)-(3) be analysed? One proposal, advanced in Anderson and Chung (1977), Anderson (1981) and Schafer (1992), is that they are instances of topicalization. One thing that casts doubt on this idea is that it appears to be a head and not a phrase that is fronted in such sentences. If

Long head movement

55

topicalization is movement to SpecCP, one would not expect a head to undergo it. One might suggest, however, as Schafer appears to do, that these sentences involve so-called remnant topicalization, the topicalization of a phrase from which a constituent has been extracted. It has been argued that this is involved in Dutch sentences like the following from Koster (1987): (4)

Gelezen heeft hij het boek niet. read has he the book not 'He has not read the book.'

Here, we have just the verb gelezen in initial position. Thus, remnant topicalization can look like head movement. Notice, however, that one would expect remnant topicalization to be subject to the same constraints as ordinary topicalization. As was noted in Stephens (1982), Breton verb-fronting is more constrained than topicalization. Firstly, it is clause-bound. Thus, an example like (5), in which the initial verb has been extracted from a subordinate clause, is ungrammatical. (5)

*Desket am eus klevet he deus Anna he c'henteliou. learnt ISG have heard 3SG.F have Anna 3SG.F lessons 'I have heard that Anna has learnt her lessons.'

Topicalization is not clause-bound. We have examples like (6), in which an NP has been extracted from a subordinate clause, and examples like (7), in which a VP has undergone the same process. (6)

(7)

Al levr a lavaras Yann e lennas. the book PRT said Yann PRT read 4 Yann said that he read the book.' O lenn al levr a ouian email Yann. PROG read the book PRT know.ISG is Yann 'I know Yann is reading this book.'

Secondly, Breton verb-fronting is blocked by negation. Thus, (8a) does not have (8b) as an alternative form. (8)

a. N' en

deus ket lennet Tom al levr. has NEG read Tom the book 'Tom has not read the book.' b. * Lennet n' en deus ket Tom al levr. read NEG 3sG.Mhas NEG Tom the book NEG 3SG.M

Topicalization is not blocked by negation. Thus (9), in which an NP has been topicalized, is perfectly acceptable.

56

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

(9)

Al levr na lennas ket Yann. the book NEG read NEG Yann 'Yann didn't read the book.'

So is (10), in which a VP has been topicalized. (10)

O lenn al levr n' email ket Yann. PROG read the book NEG is NEG Yann 'Yann isn't reading the book.'

The ungrammaticality of examples like (8b) not only distinguishes Breton verbfronting from Breton topicalization, it also distinguishes it from remnant topicalization in Dutch, which, as (4) shows, is not blocked by negation. It is fairly clear, then, that examples like (l)-(3) are not instances of topicalization.2 Within current theoretical assumptions, a natural proposal is that examples like (l)-(3) involve movement to C. For (1), this will give something like the following analysis: CP

(11)

IP VP

V; NP

VP NP

lennet

en deus

Yann

al levr

This analysis embodies the widely held assumption that subjects of VSO clauses are in a VP-internal position (see among others Koopman and Sportiche 1991; McCloskey 1991b; Rouveret 1990). It is rather like analyses proposed in Hendrick (1990a, 1991) except that Hendrick assumes that the auxiliary en deus originates in a specifier position. We see no advantage in this assumption and at least one disadvantage: it requires a process of specifier-to-head movement, something which is not generally assumed. We would have a more complex structure here if we assumed separate T and AGR categories instead of I (see e.g. Pollock 1989 and Chomsky 1991). We would also have a more complex structure if the auxiliary originated in a lower position and was moved into its surface position. However, we will ignore both these possibilities in subsequent discussion. Examples (2) and (3) appear to be somewhat more complex than (1) given that the particles e and a precede the auxiliaries. In Hendrick (1988), these particles are analysed as complementizers. There is, however, evidence against such an analysis, most notably in Stump (1989). What their underlying status is is far from

Long head movement

57

clear. Superficially, however, they appear to form a constituent with the following finite element. We assume, then, that (2) and (3) have structures like (11) except that they have a complex I constituent. One further point that we should note here is that we seem to have a violation of the Head Movement Constraint, which stipulates that a head can only move to the nearest c-commanding head position. We will return to this matter in section 4. One argument against an analysis like that in (11) is advanced in Borsley (1992). It involves examples like the following: (12)

Lennet en deus ha komprenet en deus Yann al levr. read 3SG.M have and understood 3SG.M have Yann the book 'Yann has read and has understood the book.'

On the assumption that only constituents can be conjoined, such examples suggest that the combination of participle and auxiliary is a constituent, contrary to the analysis in (11). It is not necessary, however, to analyse (12) as involving the co-ordination of participle + auxiliary combinations. Instead, it can be analysed as involving the right node raising of the (verbless) VP Yann al levr. The following examples suggest that this is a plausible analysis: (13)

(14)

Dec'h e welas ha hirie e prenas Yann al levr. yesterday PRT saw and today PRT bought Yann the book 'Yesterday Yann saw and today he bought the book.' Dec'h en devoa gwelet ha hirie en deus prenet yesterday 3SG.M had seen and today 3SG.M have bought Yann al levr. Yann the book 'Yesterday Yann had seen and today he has bought the book.'

In (13) the conjunction is preceded and followed by the sequence adverbial, particle and finite verb, and in (14) it is preceded and followed by the sequence adverbial, auxiliary and participle. Neither of these sequences can be plausibly analysed as a constituent. Thus, these examples must involve the right node raising of a VP. It is natural to assume that (13) does too.

3 Long head movement So far we have said very little that is new. We can now move on to something which we assume is new. This is the central observation of the chapter: that V + Aux order is not a peculiarity of Breton, but is a feature of a number of languages discussed in Rivero (1991, 1994) and Lema and Rivero (1989a, 1989b, 1991), and as in these languages is the result of long head movement (LHM). In particular, as noted at the outset, it is a feature of Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian,

58

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

Rumanian, Old Spanish and European Portuguese before the twentieth century. The following illustrate: (15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

Procel sum knigata. (Bulgarian) read have.lsG book-the 'I have read the book.' Koupiljsem knihy. (Czech) bought have.lsG books 'I have bought books.' Napisal som list. (Slovak) written have. 1 SG letter 'I have written a letter.' Citao sam knjigu. (Serbo-Croatian) read have. ISG book 'I read a book.' Spune mi va? (Rumanian) tell me will.3sG 'Will she/he tell me?' Dar- te he un exemplo. (Old Spanish) give you will. 1 SG an example 'I will give you an example.' Seguir- te- ei por toda a parte. (European follow you will.ISG by all the part Portuguese) 'I will follow you everywhere.'

Here and subsequently, we indicate which language non-Breton examples come from by giving the language in parentheses after the example. In all these examples, we have a non-finite verb followed by an auxiliary. Note, however, that the auxiliary does not immediately follow the verb in the last three examples because a clitic pronoun intervenes. A number of properties of LHM are identified in the papers we have cited. We will show that Breton verb-fronting has all these properties. The first property of LHM that is identified in the earlier papers is that it is restricted to root clauses. The following Bulgarian data illustrate this property: (22)

a. Znam ce sum procel knigata. know. 1 SG that have. 1 SG read book-the 'I know that I have read the book.' b. *Znam ce procel sum knigata.

(Bulgarian)

In (22a) the participle follows the auxiliary in the subordinate clause. Hence, LHM has not applied. In (22b), the participle precedes the auxiliary, indicating that LHM has applied. The result is ungrammaticality. The following data show that Breton verb-fronting is subject to the same restriction:

Long head movement (23)

59

a. Lavaret he deus Anna en deus lennet Tom al levr. said 3SG.F have Anna 3SG.M have read Tom the book 'Anna said Tom had read the book.' b. *Lavaret he deus Anna lennet en deus Tom al levr.

In (23a) the participle in the subordinate clause follows the auxiliary but in (23b) it precedes as a result of verb-fronting and the result is ungrammaticality.3 There is in fact one situation in which verb-fronting can occur in subordinate clauses. We will discuss this in section 4. The second property of LHM that the earlier papers discuss is that it cannot cross a negative particle. It either takes the negative particle with it or it does not occur in negative sentences. The former is the case in Czech, while the latter is the case in Bulgarian, as the following illustrate: (24)

(25)

Ne koupil jsem knihy. NEG bought have.lsG books 'I did not buy books.' a. Ne sum procel knigata. NEG have. ISG read book-the 'I have not read the book.' b. * Procel ne sum knigata. read NEG have.ISG book-the

(Czech)

(Bulgarian)

We saw earlier that Breton verb-fronting is impossible in negative sentences. The relevant examples are repeated here as (26). (26)

a. N' en deus ket lennet Tom al levr. NEG 3SG.M has NEG read Tom the book T o m has not read the book.' b. *Lennet n' en deus ket Tom al levr. read NEG 3SG.M has NEG Tom the book

A further property of long head movement that is highlighted in the earlier papers is that it is incompatible with movement to SpecCP. Again, we can illustrate with Bulgarian data: (27)

a. Kakvo e procel Petur? what has read Peter 'What has Peter read?' b. *Kakvo procel e Petur? what read has Peter

(Bulgarian)

In these examples we have w/j-movement, one instantiation of movement to SpecCP. In (27a), the participle follows the auxiliary. Hence, there is no LHM.

60

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

In (27b), the participle precedes the auxiliary. Hence, LHM has applied. This example is ungrammatical. Consider now some Breton data. (28)

a. Al levr en deus lennet Tom. the book 3SG.M has read Tom Tom has read the book.' b. *A1 levr lennet en deus Tom. the book read 3SG.M has Tom

Here, we have topicalization, another instantiation of movement to SpecCP. In (28a), there is no verb-fronting. In (28b), verb-fronting has applied and ungrammaticality results. The final property that the earlier papers highlight is that an auxiliary allows LHM or VP-fronting, but not both. Auxiliaries that allow LHM are termed functional auxiliaries and auxiliaries that allow VP-fronting are termed lexical auxiliaries, and a number of properties of the two types are identified. The following examples show that the Bulgarian and Czech perfect auxiliaries, which allow LHM, do not allow VP-fronting: (29)

(30)

*Procel knigata sum. read book-the PRES.ISG 'I have read the book.' *Koupil knihy jsem. bought books have.lsG 'I have bought books.'

(Bulgarian)

(Czech)

In contrast, the Czech future auxiliary allows VP-fronting but not LHM. The following illustrate: (31)

a. Kupovat knihy budu. buy books will.lsG 'I will buy books.' b. * Kupo vat budu knihy. buy will.lsG books

(Czech)

Returning now to Breton, the following shows the Breton perfect auxiliary does not allow VP-fronting:4 (32)

*Lennetal levr en deus Yann. read the book3sG.M has Yann 'Tom has read the book.'

Long head movement

61

The following shows that the same is true of the Breton passive auxiliary: (33)

*LennetgantYann e oa al levr. read by Yann PRT was the book T h e book was read by Yann.'

Contrasting with the perfect and passive auxiliaries, we have the progressive auxiliary. This allows VP-fronting (as we saw earlier) but not verb-fronting. The following illustrate: (34)

a. O lenn al levr email Yann. PROG read the book is Yann 4 Yann is reading the book.' b. *O lenn email Yann al levr. PROG read is Yann the book

Thus, Breton V-fronting has all the properties that are associated with LHM in earlier work. Therefore, we conclude that it is a further case of LHM.

4 Analytic questions As we noted at the outset, a number of questions arise about LHM in any language in which it occurs. In this section we will look at these questions and consider how they should be answered in Breton. The most obvious question is: why does LHM occur? Superficially, it may appear that the answer to this question is rather different in Breton than in the other LHM languages. We will argue, however, that this is not the case, and propose a unified account based on licensing requirements for Tense. For LHM languages other than Breton, it is often suggested that LHM is one way of avoiding weak, clitic elements such as auxiliaries or pronouns in sentence-initial position. In Breton, it is possible to have a pronominal clitic in sentence-initial position, as the following illustrate: (35)

(36)

E c'halvet en deus Yann. 3SG.M called 3SG.M have Yann 4 Yann has called him.' O gwelet am eus. 3PL seen ISG have 'I have seen them.'

In both of these examples, we have an object clitic in initial position followed by a participle. Thus, weak clitic elements can appear in sentence-initial position in Breton. What is not in general possible in sentence-initial position is a finite verb. Thus, the following is ungrammatical:

62

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

(37)

*Lenn Anna al levr. read Anna the book 'Anna reads the book.'

In contrast, we have examples like the following: (38)

(39)

(40)

Al levr a lenn Anna, the book PRT read Anna 'Anna reads the book.' Ne lenn ket Anna al levr. NEG read NEG Anna the book 'Anna didn't read the book.' Gouzout a ran e lenn Anna al levr. know PRT do. ISG PRT read Anna the book 'I know that Anna read the book.'

In (38) the finite verb is preceded by a topicalized NP, in (39) it is preceded by the negative element ne, and in (40) we have a finite verb in initial position in a subordinate clause. All of these examples are acceptable because they do not have a finite verb in sentence-initial position. In general, then, finite verbs cannot appear in sentence-initial position in Breton. There is, however, one important exception to this. This is a form of the copula that takes a PP or a progressive complement. The following illustrate: (41)

(42)

EmanYann war an hent. is Yann on the road 'Yann is on the road.' Eman Anna o lenn al levr. is Anna PROG read the book 'Anna is reading the book.'

There is a further point that we should note here. Although (35) and (36) are perfectly grammatical, clitics are not always acceptable in sentence-initial position. Consider, for example, the following: (43)

(44)

*E c'halvas Yann. 3SG.M called Yann 'Yann called him.' *O gwelis. 3PL saw.ISG

'I saw them.' In these examples the clitics are followed by a finite verb, whereas in (35) and (36) they are followed by participles. What this suggests is that the combination of a

Long head movement

63

clitic and a finite verb counts as a finite verb and is impossible where a finite verb is impossible. In view of the above phenomena, it may appear that we have a rather different restriction in Breton than in the other LHM languages. However, Rivero (1993) argues that all LHM languages including Breton are characterized by a syntactic licensing system for Tense which accounts for the properties of this language type and separates it from other types such as the verb-second type. We will summarize the proposed analysis. The central idea of the analysis is that Tense may be licensed in two ways in LHM languages. On the one hand, it may be licensed by a V which is adjoined to it. In other words, it may be licensed in its checking domain in the sense of Chomsky (1993). On the other hand, it may be licensed by a governing C with certain properties. In other words, it may be licensed in the internal domain of C in Chomsky's (1993) terminology. In Breton, Tense is generally licensed in this way. Only the form of the copula illustrated in (41) and (42) can license Tense in its checking domain. A governing C may license tense under three conditions: (a) it is filled either by negation or by a non-finite verb; (b) its specifier position is filled; or (c) it heads a CP which is L-marked. Within this analysis, LHM languages may differ in how much they utilize the two ways of licensing Tense. As we have noted, Breton tense is generally licensed in the internal domain of C. In Slavonic only the functional auxiliaries traditionally labelled clitics are licensed in this way. Verbs and lexical auxiliaries can license Tense in its checking domain. Hence, they can appear in sentenceinitial position. In addition to the two ways of licensing Tense, one of which derives second position effects for tensed items, all LHM languages including Breton have a long X° movement process for non-tensed verbs and auxiliaries. This is a last-resort operation subject to economy. As such, it applies only if nothing else licenses Tense. Although LHM languages share a common system for licensing Tense, this does not mean that they share the same systems for licensing other functional categories. In Slavonic, licensing systems for pronominal clitics of the functional category D resemble in great measure the system used for Tense. In Breton, however, pronominal clitics adopt the licensing system of the category they attach to. This means that in (35) and (36) the pronominal clitic is licit in sentence-initial position because a non-finite verb is licit in this position. In contrast in (43) and (44) clitics are impossible in sentence-initial position because finite verbs are impossible in this position. Here, then, we have an account of why LHM occurs in Breton which treats it as essentially similar to other LHM languages despite the superficial differences. A second question that we need to ask about LHM is: why is it possible? As we noted earlier, LHM is incompatible with the Head Movement Constraint. Since

64

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

Chomsky (1986) the HMC has been viewed as a consequence of the Empty Category Principle and in particular the requirement that traces be antecedentgoverned. Assuming that this approach is basically sound, the question that arises is: how can the ECP allow certain exceptions to the HMC while ensuring that it generally holds? If antecedent-government is subject to Relativized Minimality, as in Rizzi (1990), the right results can be obtained if two types of head are distinguished. This idea is developed in Roberts (1994a). Building on the proposals of Chomsky and Lasnik (1993), Roberts distinguishes between L-related and non-L-related heads. A head is L-related if it contains a feature of some lexical head. Otherwise, it is non-L-related. In the present context, what is important is that I is L-related (or T and Agr are if they are distinguished) while C and Neg are non-L-related. If Relativized Minimality is sensitive to the distinction, the ECP will allow a head to cross over another head as long as the head that it crosses is not of the same type as the head to which it moves. Hence, it will allow a verb to move to C across I since while I is L-related C is not. This approach receives important support from sentences which contain two auxiliaries, one finite and the other non-finite. Here, we have examples like the following: (45)

a. Bet am eus kavet al levr. had have.lsG found the book 'I have found the book.' b. Kavet am eus bet al levr. found have.lsG had the book

In (45a), the non-finite auxiliary appears in initial position, followed by the finite auxiliary and the main verb. In (45b), the main verb is in initial position, followed by the finite auxiliary and the non-finite auxiliary. These are active sentences. We have similar passive sentences. Consider the following: (46)

a. Bet eo lennet al levr gant Yann. been is read the book by Yann T h e book has been read by Yann.' b. Lennet eo bet al levr gant Yann. read is been the book by Yann

Again, we have the non-finite auxiliary in initial position in the (a) example and the main verb in initial position in the (b) example. As Rivero (1991) notes, similar examples occur with the Bulgarian renarrated mood: (47)

a. Bil sum cetjal knigata. had have. 1 SG read book + the 'According to someone, I am reading the book.'

(Bulgarian)

Long head movement

65

b. Cetjal sum bil knigata read have. 1 SG had book + the In examples such as Breton (45b) and (46b) and Bulgarian (47b), two heads and not just one intervene between the verb and its trace in VP. We assume that (45b) has something like the following structure, and that (46b) and Bulgarian (47b) have similar structures: (48)

kavet

al levr

We assume that the untensed verb in C antecedent-governs its trace in such examples because the auxiliaries are all L-related. Hence, there is no violation of the ECP. While these long' LHM patterns can be easily accommodated within an approach which recognizes two types of heads and appeals to Relativized Minimality, they appear problematic for other recent analyses of LHM, such as those proposed by Cavar and Wilder (1992), Dobrovie-Sorin (forthcoming: ch. 1) and Manzini (1992b), which seek to avoid an appeal to Relativized Minimality. These treatments differ from each other in several respects but they share the core idea that the fronted non-tensed verb and the following tensed auxiliary form a complex in C in LHM sentences. In simple LHM sentences, this complex head is able to antecedent-govern both the trace of the tensed auxiliary which is in IP and the trace of the non-tensed item which is in VP, since it contains indices for both traces. However, in examples like (45b), (46b) and (47b), there is a non-tensed auxiliary between the tensed auxiliary and the trace in VP. Hence, even if the tensed auxiliary is in C, the non-tensed verb will not antecedent-govern the trace in VP without an appeal to Relativized Minimality.5 A third question that arises about LHM is: what sort of movement is it? Rizzi and Roberts (1989) identify two main types of head movement: movement triggered by the m(orphological)-selection properties of the host head, and adjunction. There are two reasons for rejecting the first of these options. Firstly, as Roberts (1994a) notes, m-selecting heads are one type of L-related head, and our account of why LHM is possible crucially involves the assumption that C is a non-L-related head. Secondly, there is evidence that the verb and the following

66

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

particle do not form a complex word, as they presumably would if we were dealing with m-selection. The evidence comes from examples like the following: (49)

(50)

(51)

Lennet ha komprenet en deus Yann al levr. read and understood 3SG.M have Yann the book 'Yann has read and understood the book.' Lennet ha komprenet e oa al levr gant Yann. read and understood PRT was the book by Yann T h e book was read and understood by Yann.' Lenn ha kompren a ra Yann al levr. read and understood PRT did Yann the book 'Yann read and understood the book.'

In these examples, the particles are preceded by conjoined Vs. It is presumably impossible to have a conjunction inside a complex word. If so, we do not have complex words here, and hence we are not dealing with m-selected movement. Examples like (49)—(51) are also possible in Bulgarian, as the following illustrates: 6 (52)

Vidjal i procel e knigata. seen.SG.M and read.sG.M has book-the 'He has seen and read the book.'

(Bulgarian)

In Bulgarian too, then, there is strong evidence that LHM cannot be m-selected movement. It looks, then, as if we have adjunction here. This will give us the following S-structure for (1). (53)

lennet

en deus

Yann

al levr

One might object to this analysis on the grounds that it does not explain why Breton LHM is clause-bound. Roberts (1991a) argues that what he calls excorporation is possible when a head is adjoined to another head: that is, the adjoined head can be moved to a higher head position. One might, then, suggest that there is no reason why a V that is adjoined to a C should not be moved to a higher

Long head movement

67

position. Interestingly, however, Roberts (1994a) argues on the basis of Romance clitic-climbing data that excorporation is impossible from a non-L-related head. As we have seen, C must preclude further movement of a V that is adjoined to C. The final question that arises about LHM is: why is it restricted as it is? There are a number of sub-questions here. The first is: why is it clause-bound? We have already answered this question. The combination of the ECP and the ban on excorporation from a non-L-related head means that a verb can move no further than the nearest C. The next sub-question is: why is LHM incompatible with negation? We can attribute this to its last-resort nature. This means that LHM cannot apply when Tense is licensed without it. Tense is licensed when the negative particle ne is in C. Hence, LHM cannot apply. The incompatibility of LHM and negation can also be seen as a consequence of the ECP given plausible assumptions about Breton negation. If we assume, building on ideas of Pollock (1989), that ne originates as the head of a NegP which has ket as its specifier, we will have the following structure for the ungrammatical (8b):7 (54)

lennet

en deus

allevr

Here, the negative head rt is moved into C and the verb is adjoined to C. The verb has been moved to one non-L-related head, C, across another, Neg. Hence, we have a violation of the ECP. There will be no violation of the ECP in a simple negative sentence such as (39). Here, we will have the following structure:

68

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

(55)

Yann e

al levr

Here, the verb is moved across a non-L-related head to an L-related head, and there is no violation of the ECP. There are two further sub-questions that we must ask: why is LHM impossible in subordinate clauses? And why is it incompatible with topicalization? Both these properties of LHM can be attributed to its last-resort nature. As we noted earlier, C can license Tense within its complement if the associated specifier position is filled and if it heads an L-marked CP. Given the last-resort nature of LHM, it will be impossible in both these situations. Notice now that these proposals suggest that C cannot license Tense within its complement if it heads a CP which is not L-marked even if it is a subordinate clause. Hence, LHM should be possible in the situation. Examples like the following suggest that this is indeed the case: (56)

N' ouzon ket ha lennet en deus Yann al levr. NEG know.lsGNEG Q read 3SG.M have Yann the book 'I don't know whether Yann has read the book.'

Here, we have an interrogative subordinate clause. This is introduced by the particle hag. We assume that hag is a functional head which takes a CP complement, but does not L-mark it. Given this assumption, we expect LHM to be possible within such complements.8

5 Two apparent problems We turn now to two features of Breton which appear to pose problems for some aspects of the conception of LHM developed in earlier work. The first apparent problem involves sentences containing various forms of ober 4 do\ Consider the following examples: (57)

Lenn a ra Yann al levr. read PRT does Yann the book 'Yann reads the book.'

Long head movement (58)

69

Lenn al levr a ra Yann. read the book PRT does Yann

Example (57) is identical to (2). Example (58) looks rather similar, but it is clearly an instance of VP-preposing since both the verb and its object appear in initial position. On the face of it, we have a counterexample here to the claim that an auxiliary allows LHM or VP-fronting but not both. However, as Stephens (1982: ch. 3) has shown, there is evidence that there are two different auxiliaries here. (See also Hewitt 1990.) Before we introduce this evidence, we can note that both LHM and VPpreposing have the expected properties in these examples. The following show that VP-preposing is unbounded, while LHM is clause-bound: (59)

a. Debrin krampouezh ed-du a ouian e rae Yann. eat pancakes buckwheat PRT know.lsG PRT did Yann 'I knew that Yann ate buckwheat pancakes.' b. * Debrin a ouian e rae Yann krampouezh ed-du. eat PRT know.lsG PRT did Yann pancakes buckwheat

The following show that VP-preposing is compatible with negation, while LHM is not. (60)

a. Debrin krampouezh ed-du ne ra ket Yann. eat pancakes buckwheat NEG do NEG Yann 'Yann does not eat buckwheat pancakes.' b. * Debrin ne ra ket Yann krampouezh ed-du. eat NEG do NEG Yann pancakes buckwheat

We turn now to the evidence that there are two different auxiliaries here. The crucial data are the following: (61)

(62)

a. Lennal levr en deus graetYann. read the book 3SG.M have done Yann 'Yann has read the book.' b. *Lenn en deus graet Yann al levr. read 3SG.M have done Yann the book a. Lennal levr a c'hellan ober. read the book PRTmay.lsG do 'I may read the book.' b. *Lenn a c'hellan ober al levr. read PRTmay.lsG do the book

Here, we see that VP-preposing but not LHM is possible with non-finite forms of ober. It may be that some independently motivated constraint blocks LHM in (62b). However, this is most unlikely in (61b). This is very similar to (45b) and (46b). We conclude, then, that there are two different auxiliaries here, one that

70

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

has just finite forms and one that has the full range of forms. We will refer to the former as functional ober and to the latter as lexical ober. If this is right, there is no problem here for the idea that an auxiliary allows LHM or VP-fronting but not both. We will say a little more about these auxiliaries. Functional ober appears to be quite like the English do of do-support. That is, it seems that it is inserted in I just in case nothing else can be inserted. In the examples we have considered, there is nothing else that can be inserted because the verb has undergone LHM. Another situation in which there may be nothing else to be inserted in I is in tag questions. Here, we have examples like the following from Wojcik (1976): (63)

Skrivan a ra Yann, ne ra ket? write PRT does Yann NEG does NEG 'Yann writes, doesn't he?'

Obviously, this is very much like the do of do-support. Turning to lexical ober, this is unlike ordinary lexical auxiliaries in that it not only allows VP-fronting but requires it. Thus, the following are ungrammatical. (64)

(65)

*Yann a ra lenn al levr. Yann PRT does read the book 'Yann reads the book.' *Yann en deus great lenn al levr. Yann 3SG.M have done read the book 'Yann has read the book.'

We suggest that lexical ober requires an empty VP as its complement. As noted in Borsley (1990), it seems that one English do is rather similar. Consider the following data: (66) (67) (68)

What John does is annoy Mary. What John may do is annoy Mary. What John seems to do is annoy Mary.

Here, we have pseudo-clefts containing a form of do. The important point about these examples is that related simple sentences are ungrammatical. The following illustrate: (69) (70) (71)

*John does annoy Mary. *John may do annoy Mary. *John seems to do annoy Mary.

It seems, then, that this do also requires an empty VP as its complement. To conclude this discussion, we can propose the following structures for the examples in (57) and (58):

Long head movement

71

(72)

lenn

e

a ra

Yann

e

a ra

e

al

levr

(73)

lenn

al

levr

e

Obviously, these are very different structures. The second apparent problem involves the contrast referred to earlier between functional and lexical auxiliaries. An important claim in earlier work is that only the latter can select a semantically defined subset of VPs. This idea receives considerable support from the Romance and Slavonic languages. In the Romance languages, LHM occurs with the future and conditional auxiliaries, which combine with all VPs, but not with the two perfect auxiliaries corresponding to have and be, which combine with a subset of VPs. In the Slavonic languages, the perfect auxiliary combines with all VPs and allows LHM. In Serbo-Croatian, the future auxiliary also combines with all VPs and allows LHM. In Czech, however, the future auxiliary only combines with imperfective VPs and does not allow LHM. Like the Romance languages, Breton has two perfect auxiliaries endevout and bezan, corresponding to have and be, which combine with a subset of VPs. However, LHM occurs with both of them. This would be no problem if the two auxiliaries combined with syntactically defined subsets of VPs. It seems unlikely, however, that this is the case. VPs headed by the same verb appear sometimes with endevout and sometimes with bezan depending on how exactly they are interpreted. Consider the following: (74)

a. Nijet o deus diwar o neizh. left 3PL have from 3PL nest They have left their nest (but may come back)/

72

(75)

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens b. Nijet int diwar o neizh. left are from 3PL nest They have left their nest (permanently).' a. Kouezhet en deus en ur zont. fallen 3SG.M have while come 'He has fallen while coming (but probably got up again).' b. Kouezhet eo en ur zont. fallen is while come 'He has fallen while coming (and is probably still there).'

The (a) examples here contain a form of endevout and the (b) examples a form of bezan. As the translations make clear, the VPs in the (a) examples have an action interpretation, while those in the (b) examples have a state interpretation. Thus, it seems that endevout combines with VPs that have an action interpretation, while bezan combines with VPs that have a state interpretation. It looks, then, as if the two Breton perfect auxiliaries have semantic selection properties. If this is right, we must draw one of two conclusions: either functional auxiliaries can have semantic selection properties or lexical auxiliaries can allow LHM. Either way, we will be revising earlier conceptions. However, before it can be concluded that distinctions between endevout and bezan do not reduce to syntax, a detailed syntactic analysis of Breton constructions with these auxiliaries is required (for a recent syntactic approach to the distinction in Romance see Kayne 1993).

6 Conclusions In this chapter, we have looked at Breton sentences in which a non-finite verb of some kind appears in initial position followed by an auxiliary. We have argued that these sentences are the product of LHM, a process previously identified in a number of Slavonic and Romance languages. Superficially, LHM appears to be motivated by a somewhat different constraint in Breton from that which motivates it in the other languages. We have argued, however, following Rivero (1993), that the same constraint is operative in all the languages in which LHM has been identified. In all these languages, LHM is one way that they have of licensing Tense. We have also argued that Breton LHM provides evidence for an approach to LHM which distinguishes two types of head and incorporates a version of the ECP sensitive to the distinction. We have also looked at two problems which Breton seems to pose for the view of LHM developed in earlier work. We have argued that one of them - that Breton seems to have an auxiliary which licenses both LHM and VP-fronting - is illusory because there are in fact two different auxiliaries. The other problem - that Breton has two auxiliaries which license LHM and seem to have semantic selection properties - we leave to further research.

Long head movement

73

Notes 1 Earlier versions of this chapter were presented at the Conference on Comparative Celtic Syntax, University of Wales Bangor, June 1992, at the Plenary of the Eurotyp Project, San Sebastian, Spain, September 1992, and at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of Surrey, September 1992. A French version of the chapter was presented at the annual meeting of the Centre Regional d' Etudes Bretonnes et Celtiques, Brest, Brittany in December 1992. We are grateful to Luigi Rizzi for helpful comments. 2 Schafer (1992) seeks to account for the contrasts between clause-initial non-finite verbs and clause-initial phrases by assuming that the latter are base-generated. However, while clause-initial phrases are not constrained in the way that clause-initial non-finite verbs are, they are not unconstrained. In particular, they show standard island effects. The following show that an NP cannot be extracted from a w/i-complement or a relative clause: (i) (ii)

*A1 the *A1 the

levr book levr book

e PRT a PRT

sonjen piv a lennas. wondered. ISG who PRT read ouian an den a lennas. know. ISG the man PRT read

It is also impossible to extract a VP from a w/z-complement or a relative clause, as the following show: (iii) (iv)

*Lenn read *Lenn read

al levr e sonjen piv reas. the book PRT wondered.ISG who did al levr a ouian an den a reas. the book PRT know. ISG the man PRT did

In the light of such data, the conclusion that clause-initial phrases are the result of movement seems inescapable. 3 Notice that the participle precedes the subject in the subordinate clause in (23a). We will not consider what sort of process is responsible for this order. 4 The impossibility of examples like (32) is noted in Anderson (1981). He suggests that they are ungrammatical because participles are adjectives and adjectives cannot take direct objects. It seems to us that this is a very unconvincing explanation. Breton participles do take direct objects. It is simply that they are commonly separated from their objects by movement processes. As far as we know, there is no reason to think that they are adjectives in the sorts of example that we are concerned with here. 5 Borsley (1990) develops an analysis within the GPSG framework of Gazdar et al. (1985) which allows examples like (45b) and (46b) but there is no obvious way to accommodate (45a) and (46a) within this analysis. 6 We are grateful to Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova for providing us with this example. 7 This is essentially the analysis proposed for the broadly similar Welsh negation in Rouveret (1991).

74

Robert D. Borsley, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens

8 Some Breton speakers have a rather different type of interrogative subordinate clause illustrated in the following: (i)

N' ouzon ket hag-en en deus lennet Yann al levr. NEG know. ISG NEG Q 3SG.M have read Yann the book 'I don't know whether Yann has read the book.'

Here, we have a finite auxiliary in initial position. It may be that hag-en is a C that takes an IP complement. Alternatively, it may be that hag is the same element as in (56) and en an expletive pronoun in SpecCP.

Some syntactic effects of suppletion in the Celtic copulas Randall Hendrick

1 Introduction This study addresses broadly the issue of how syntax and morphology interact.1 I approach this topic by examining some of the syntactic consequences of irregular forms that appear in the third-person present tense of the copula in many of the Celtic languages. I suggest in section 2 that the Welsh and Breton copulas are fundamentally different and reproduce a distinction familiar from traditional descriptions of Irish: the Welsh copula is a substantive (i.e. lexical) copula while its Breton counterpart is a functional (or 'grammatical') copula, a spellout of tense and agreement features. I then argue in section 3 that, although both languages exhibit irregular forms in the copula's third-person present tense, they behave quite differently syntactically, and that this fact correlates with the distinction between substantive and functional copulas. Only the (Welsh) substantive copula exhibits suppletion that has syntactic effects; the (Breton) functional copula varies morphophonemically in terms of its spell-out and is syntactically inert. I make use of ideas of Pesetsky (1994) to model variation in the morphosyntactic restrictions of the Welsh substantive copula. Both the substantive and functional copula are, I claim, similar in terms of their selectional properties. Their difference, like other kinds of 'syntactic' variation between languages, is a formal, morphosyntactic one. In essence my claim is that the variation in the copulas reduces to a formal one between lexical formatives and functional formatives.2 In this respect I depart from the tack taken by Rouveret (this volume) which attributes the suppletion in Welsh of the third-person present-tense copula to a contrast between forms of the copula that semantically license stage-level predicates and other forms that lack that ability, as my analysis in section 4 of the Welsh suppletive form mae makes clear. The point is reinforced in section 5: the Welsh suppletive forms of the copula appear in a construction that suggests that, for purely morphosyntactic reasons, there are two positions outside VP that license subjects. This phenomenon poses a challenge for (mixed) semantic accounts such as that favoured by Rouveret that attribute semantic properties (in addition to morphosyntactic properties) to these two positions in which subjects are licensed. I conclude in section 6 by drawing out some of the implications that the syntactic effects of suppletive forms have for our understanding of how 75

76

Randall Hendrick

grammars organize themselves. My point is that syntax should not be insulated from the process of lexical instantiation that matches complex symbols of grammatical features with lexical forms.

2 Two Celtic copulas Traditional grammars commonly distinguish two copulas in Irish because one encounters in that language two morphologically different forms of the copula. This claim has recently been carefully defended in a generative framework by Doherty (1992), where a functional copula (is) is isolated that spells out tense and agreement, and a substantive copula (ta) formed on a verbal stem.3 In Hendrick (1994) I try to show that a similar distinction appears in the Brythonic languages, Welsh and Breton, as well, and explains some of the otherwise idiosyncratic differences between these languages. The variation between the substantive and grammatical copula is reflected in the surface word order. The functional copula, which appears in Breton sentences like (1), requires the predicate adjective (or nominal) to raise so that it appears in initial position to the left of the subject. (1)

(2)

Setu ar verc'h[Cp e oa spletus he levr]. this the woman PRT be.iMPERF profitable her book This is the woman whose book was profitable.' *Setu ar verc'h[ CP e oa he levr spletus].

Welsh on the other hand has a substantive copula. The Welsh substantive copula co-occurs with a predicative particle; the predicate adjective (or nominal) raises to that particle and appears to the right of the subject, as (3) exemplifies. (3)

Y mae Ifanyn saer. PRT be.PRES Ifan PRT carpenter 'Ifan is a carpenter.'

In this section we search for an explanation for this gross distinction in what are in many other respects rather similar languages. 2.1 The Welsh substantive copula In Modern Welsh predicate adjectives and predicate nominals occur in a copular construction that contains, in addition to the copula bod, a predicative particle yn. Thus we encounter structures of the form (PRT) bodNPyn AP/NP, as illustrated by the examples in (3) and (4).4 (4)

Y mae'r ty yn fawr. PRT is-the house PRT big The house is big.'

Suppletion in copulas

77

It is important to recognize that sentences (3) and (4) contrast with sentences containing transitive and intransitive verbs such as (5) where yn is not a predicative particle but still functions as a preverbal particle.5 (5)

Mae ef yn gweithio. be.PRES he PRT work 'He is working.'

The important difference between these various occurrences of yn is the following: the predicative use of the particle triggers the appropriate consonant mutation on the following phrase. Understanding why the predicative yn triggers consonant mutation on the following formative provides an important clue to a structural difference between (3) and (4) on the one hand and (5) on the other. The Welsh soft mutation is summarized in (6). (6)

p- b b->f[v] t-+d d -> dd [6] c-+g g->0 m —> v

Sproat (1982 and 1986) presents an insightful account of soft mutation. Instead of deriving [d] from [t] under lenition, or [6] from [d] under frication, all the variants are derived from an archiphoneme /T/ underspecified for the continuant and voice features. Specification of this archiphoneme takes place in the lexicon. On Sproat's view preflxation and cliticization induce mutation.6 This claim accounts for the fact that the vast majority of prefixes in the language are followed by lenition on the initial element of the following root. For example cam'mis' + deall 'understand' is camddeall 'misunderstand'. Similarly rhag- 'pre' + barn 'judgement' gives rhagfarn 'prejudice'. In virtually all compounds the initial consonant of the second element is also lenited. Gwag 'empty' + Haw 'hand' gives gwaglaw 'empty-handed'. Similarly rheilffordd 'railway' + gorsaf 'station' gives rheilffordd orsaf 'railway station'. From this perspective, the predicate adjective construction entails cliticizing or affixing the predicate adjective to the particle yn. This can be accomplished syntactically by head-raising the predicate adjective to the particle yn. The mutation facts raise the question of why head-raising to the particle should happen with the predicate adjective and not with the other constructions involving yn such as (5). Predicate adjectives have a thematic role to discharge and their subject discharges that theta-role thereby saturating the predicate. On this view the copula is required syntactically but remains semantically inert because it assigns

78

Randall Hendrick

no independent theta-role. The subject of the adjective originates in a small clause at D-structure and is raised to the subject of the copula to satisfy Case Theory. I will assume that NPs can be licensed for the purposes of Case Theory in either the specifier position of AGRP or of TP. Building on ideas developed in Pesetsky (1994), I will also take it for granted that functional categories may be specified to occur on the left edge of a phrasal domain. 7 A version of Pesetsky's notation would state that T is specified LE(T, CP) in Welsh, meaning that it must appear at PF on the left edge of CP. The only way to Case-license the subject of the small clause and satisfy the left-edge requirement on T is to raise the small clause subject to SPEC, TP and raise V to T and then to AGR. 8 Thus the structure of (4) is (7). (7)

[cp[AGRpMae7[TP'r t y ^ t v p ^[ASPP yn fawrJAp'/[^]]]]]]]]-

I assume here that yn is a functional head of the category ASPP, but is crucially not an L-marker.9 As a consequence, the direct raising of y(r) /j>out of AP to subject position in [SPEC, TP] of (7) is not possible because it would cross at least one barrier, ASPP, preventing proper government of its trace. ASPP will inherit barrier status from the AP that it governs but does not L-mark. It is this fact that leads mawr to raise to yn by head-to-head movement, capturing Sproat's (1982) suggestion that yn is a 'prefix' dependent on the adjective. After raising mawr to yn, yn has the necessary lexical material required to L-mark, and ASPP is no longer a barrier. 10 On this account, a different structure must be given to other occurrences of yn. The subject in (5) cannot originate within a small clause embedded under yn, as I claimed for the predicate adjectives. If it were to originate there, we would expect the verb to raise to yn, just as the predicate adjective does, and exhibit consonant mutation. For this reason I posit that there is a structural asymmetry between the D-structure position of subjects in predicate adjectives and in clauses with noncopular verbs.11 In (5) the subject appears outside yn + VP at D-structure. For the moment we can assume that it is a D-structure specifier of the ASPP headed by yn.12 In this way (5) has an S-structure like (8) after mae fronts to clause-initial position to satisfy the left-edge requirement of T by raising to AGR. (8)

icptAGRpMae^T-pefyfvp/^^pp^-ynlvpgweithio]]]]]]].

I am suggesting here that the external theta-role of the VP is assigned compositionally through ASPP and its functional verb mae, much as in Tenny (1987).

Suppletion in copulas

79

2.2 Substantive copulas versus functional copulas Predicate adjectives in Breton look quite different from their Welsh counterparts. We have already seen in examples (l)-(2) that the predicate adjective positions itself between the finite verb and the subject. The following examples reemphasize this fact.13 (9)

(10)

N'eo ket kenbihan-se e di. NEG.isNEG as small-that his house 'His house is not so small as that.' N'eo ket ken krenv an avel hirio. NEG is NEG as strong the wind today T h e wind is not as strong today.'

In Hendrick (1994) I propose that these sentences have the D-structure in (11). (11)

ARGP AGR

TP

AP NP

AP

I conjecture that the copula eo/oa is a spell-out of T + AGR and that the subject of an AP is not in a Case-marked position. What is more, neither T nor AGR are L-markers. Given these assumptions, the subject of the small clauses must raise to [SPEC, TP] for the purposes of Case Theory. As a result, A raises to T in order to L-mark the AP and permit raising of the NP to [SPEC, TP]. The A + T complex raises further to AGR to satisfy a left-edge requirement on Breton T. 14 Crucially, the Breton copula is not a lexical verb, and differs in this respect from the Welsh copula in (4).

3 The syntactic consequences of suppletion in the third-person present form of the copula Let us now consider the paradigm for the Welsh copula bod given in (12). The pattern here is straightforward: the verbal stem appears to be (yd)\vy combined with agreement suffixes and either an affirmative prefix r-, or a negative prefix d-.

80

Randall Hendnck

(12)

Interrogative 1st 2nd 3rd

Singular wyf, ydwyf wyt, ydwyt yw, ydyw, oes

Plural ym, ydym ych, ydych ynt, ydynt

rwyf, rydwyf rwyt, rydwyt mae, oes, sydd

rym, rydym rych, rydych rynt, rydynt

dwyf, dydwyf dwyt, dydwyt dyw, dydyw

dym, dydym dych, dydych dynt, dydynt

Affirmative

1st 2nd 3rd Negative

1st 2nd 3rd

There is a departure from this straightforward pattern in the third-person affirmative. The paradigm for the Welsh bod would lead us to expect rydy in the affirmative third-person singular when in fact we find the suppletive forms mae and sydd. In the interrogative mood ydy appears as expected and similarly for the negative dydy. (The form oes is used with an indefinite subject obligatorily in the negative and interrogative moods, optionally in the affirmative mood.) I would like to pursue in greater detail the appearance of the suppletive form sydd and mae in the affirmative mood. When a subject is extracted in Welsh we typically find the structure NP/ + a + V + f/ as illustrated in (14). In Hendrick (1988) I argue that the complementizer a is forced to appear in structures like (14) in order to license the trace for the purposes of the ECP. In this way the trace of the dislocated subject is not properly governed in (15). Yet bod 'be' curiously departs from this otherwise regular pattern: when a subject is extracted over bod, we find [NP/sydd tt...] as in (17) rather than [NPjaydyti...] as in (16). (13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Darllenodd John y llyfr. read.PAST John the book 'John read the book.' John a ddarllenodd y llyfr. John PRT read.PAST the book 'John read the book.' *John y /0 darllenodd y llyfr. John PRT/ 0 read.PAST the book 'John read the book.' *Rhys a ydy yn athro. Rhys PRT be.PRES PRT teacher 'Rhys is a teacher.'

Suppletion in copulas (17)

81

Rhys sydd yn athro. Rhys be.PRES PRT teacher 'Rhys is a teacher.'

The formative sydd surfaces only when a subject is extracted, as the ungrammatically of (18) suggests. (18)

*Sydd Rhys yn athro. be.PRES Rhys PRT teacher 'Rhys is a teacher.'

In addition, sydd remains invariant regardless of whether a singular or plural subject is dislocated over it. This fact can be seen by contrasting (17) with (19) (19)

Y dynion sydd wedi darllen y llyfr. the men be.PRES PRT read the book 'The men read the book.'

Summarizing our observations thus far, we have identified three idiosyncratic properties of the suppletive form sydd that seem true of all dialects of Welsh: 1 Sydd appears only with a dislocated subject. 2 Sydd fails to co-occur with the preverbal particle a that typically licenses the traces of dislocated subjects for the ECP. 3 Sydd does not vary for number; it remains invariant. Suppose that there is no privileged level of lexical insertion, and that lexical items can be introduced to a phrase marker after the operation of move-a. To account for the appearance of sydd one could frame a lexical entry for sydd that inserts it under an appropriate C + V + AGR complex when adjacent to a trace. This amounts to stipulating the first property of sydd noted above, that it only cooccurs with dislocated subjects. To encode properties B and C, let us further stipulate that sydd is co-indexed to the trace on its right. (20)

sydd, [C[[V, T] AGR]],

[NP /,]

The structure in (21) exemplifies how sydd will surface after lexical insertion.

82

Randall Hendrick

(21)

C

AGR NP;

sydd,

As a lexically listed suppletive form, sydd will morphologically block out (in the sense of Aronoff 1976) the regular form of the copula, ydy, in the context of insertion specified by the subcategorization restriction in (20). In Hendrick (1988) I have argued that both the complementizer a and the overt rich agreement traditionally termed synthetic agreement serve as proper governors for traces in Welsh and Breton. Where one of these elements must remain in a structure to license a trace, the complementizer a takes precedence over the synthetic agreement. In Hendrick (1994) I argue that a deletion operation affects synthetic agreement and the complementizer a eliminating one or both so long as independent principles of Universal Grammar such as the ECP are satisfied. We might choose to equate this operation with the Principle of Telegraph proposed by Pesetsky (1994).15 Telegraph applies to delete functional categories subject to absolute universal principles (such as the Recoverability of Deletion Principle) and a series of (partially) ordered relative constraints that prefer some morphemes at constituent boundaries.16 These constraints may vary in their ordering between languages and operate on pools of possible structures to select an 'optimal' structure at PF. Where one of these elements must remain in a structure to license an empty category, the a in C takes precedence over synthetic agreement. In Pesetsky's framework we could stipulate that a, synthetic agreement (SAGR) and sydd all require being on the left boundary of a clause but that these claims are prioritized by the hierarchy in (22).17 Structure S/ that violates a more highly ranked constraint defers to a competing structure S, that violates less highly ranked constraints, or no constraints at all; structures {S/, S,} whose leftmost violations are equally ranked order themselves in such a way that S7 defers to S7 if S/ violates a more highly ranked constraint than S,. This procedure is applied recursively from left to right on the table and defines the most preferred, or 'optimal', structure or set of structures. The table in (23) is intended to show graphically that sydd without the a complementizer or synthetic agreement forms the optimal structure in this sense. Violations of a constraint are indicated by *; constraints that make a structure non-optimal are signalled by!

Suppletion in copulas (22)

83

Recoverability Principle < ECP < LE(sydd, CP) < LE(a, CP) < TEL < LE(SAGR, CP)

(23)

RCV

ECP

LE(sydd,

LE(a,

CP)

CP)

*Y dynion, syddSAGR /, wedi darllen y llyfr.

LE(SAGR, CP)

*

*t

*Y dynion, a sydd tt wedi darllen y llyfr.

TEL

* *

Y dynion, sydd tt wedi darllen y llyfr.

By the ranking of constraints in (22) Telegraph will eliminate synthetic agreement in favour of the complementizer a, and will eliminate both of those in favour of sydd, so long as the Recoverability Principle is respected. We have modelled the general properties A, B and C of sydd that hold in Welsh generally. There is, however, considerable variation as to the co-occurrence of sydd with the other complementizer: the negative {ni)djna\ and the affirmative (y)r.n I turn now to account for the variation involving the negative complementizer. The negative particle (ni)d/na is in complementary distribution with the particle a, a fact that is readily accounted for if we class them both as complementizers competing for the same structural position. (24)

a. y

dyn na welodd Wyn

the man PRT see.PAST Wyn

'the man that Wyn didn't see' b. y dyn a welodd Wyn the man PRT see.PAST Wyn

'the man that Wyn saw' c. *y dyn a na/naa welodd Wyn the man PRT PRT see Wyn 'the man that Wyn didn't see' In the negative construction of formal Welsh, just where a cannot appear the synthetic agreement appears instead, precisely as the hierarchy of edge effects in (22) would lead us to expect. That is to say, in the negative a verb agrees in person and number with a preposed subject, as can be seen in (25). (25)

a. y

dynion na

the men

ddaethant

NEG come.PAST.3PL

b. *y dynion na ddaeth the men NEG come.PAST In some dialects the negative complementizer can co-occur with sydd, as in (26), although it may not appear with a. This asymmetry between the negative

84

Randall Hendrick

complementizer and a should be attributed to a difference in how Telegraph applies modulo the Recoverability of Deletion Principle: while a can be deleted, the application of Telegraph to na would delete non-recoverable material. It is interesting that in such dialects sydd does not change its shape to show number agreement as the verbs in (25) do. (26)

Dyma'r bechgyn na sydd yn canu yn y cor. here the boys NEG be.PRES PRT sing in the choir There are the boys who will not be singing in the choir.'

This fact shows that even when a is not present synthetic agreement is blocked; we deduce that there must be another element that is able to satisfy the ECP and that is higher than synthetic agreement in the hierarchy (27). Our decision to recognize sydd as a licenser for the ECP by giving it an index was on the right track. (27)

Recoverability Principle < ECP < LE(na, CP) < LE(sydd, CP) < LE(a, CP) < TEL < LE(SAGR, CP)

(28)

RCV

LE(«a, CP)

LE(sydd,

LE(a,

CP)

CP)

TEL

LE(SAGR, CP)

*

Y dyn na sydd t wedi.

*

*Y dynion na syddSAGR I wedi. *Y dyn sydd / wedi.

ECP

*!

* *

*

Other dialects of Welsh do not allow sydd to appear with the negative complementizer na(d). Just in these cases we find the non-suppletive form of the copula ydy that co-occurs with synthetic agreement and a resumptive pronoun in subject position. 19 (29)

Dyma'r tim nad ydy e (ddim) wedi ennill gem eleni. here-is-the team NEG be.PRES it (NEG) PRT win game this-year 'Here's the team that hasn't won a game this year.'

Empirical considerations like those outlined in Shlonsky (1992) might lead us to posit a constraint that prefers traces to resumptive pronouns. Call this constraint Avoid Resumptive Pronoun (ARP). Dialects that accept (26) might be thought to rank this constraint relatively highly while dialects that prefer (29) rank it lower. More specifically, the dialect accepting (29) would be (32) while the dialect preferring (26) would be (30). These rankings will prefer nad ydy in the former case and na sydd in the latter as the tables below show. (30)

Recoverability Principle < ECP < ARP < LE(na, CP) < LE(sydd, CP) < LE(a, CP) < TEL < LE(SAGR, CP)

85

Suppletion in copulas (31)

RCV

ARP

ECP

LE(na, CP)

LE(sydd, CP)

LE(a, CP)

*y dynion, na syddSAGR /, wedi darllen y llyfr

*!

*

*

*!

* *

*

*!

*y dynion, nad ydy pronoun, wedi darllen y llyfr

(32)

LE(SAGR, CP)

*

y dyn na sydd / wedi

*y dynion, sydd /, wedi darllen y llyfr

TEL

Recoverability Principle < ECP < LE(na, CP) < LE(sydd, CP) < ARP < LE(fl, CP) < TEL < LE(SAGR, CP)

(33)

RCV

ECP

LE(na,

LE(sydd,

CP)

CP)

*y dynion, na sydd /, wedi

*!

*y dynion, na syddSAGR tt wedi

*!

*y dynion, sydd f, wedi

ARP

TEL

LE(SAGR, CP) *

* *

*! *

y dynion,- nad ydy pronoun,- wedi

The Breton paradigm for bezan is as in (34) and offers a valuable contrast to the Welsh paradigm examined above. 20 (34) Indicative 1st 2nd 3rd Habitual 1st 2nd 3rd

Singular on out eo, a zo, eus

Plural omp oc'h int

bezan bezez bez, a zo, eus

bezomp bezit bezont

The third person shows considerable complexity here as well, but it departs somewhat from Welsh. The form eus is tangential to our interests, and I set it aside.21 What is important for our purposes at this juncture is the special form a zo, which is employed just when the subject is extracted, parallel to Welsh sydd. Our conjecture that Breton differs from Welsh in that the former has only a grammatical copula spelling out grammatical features of tense and agreement by phonological rule makes it impossible to extend our treatment of the Welsh sydd to its Breton counterpart. In Welsh we found an irregular non-complex lexical item that morphologically blocks the appearance of a rule-governed complex form. Breton should not have a suppletive form in this sense. We thus expect that,

86

Randall Hendrick

despite the superficial similarity between Welsh sydd and Breton a zo, they should have a very different syntactic distribution. It is crucial that, unlike its Welsh counterpart sydd, the formative a zo is never able to co-occur with the negative complementizer. (35)

(36)

(37)

Mona a zo brav. Mona be.PRES fine 'Mona is fine.' Mona n'eo ket brav. Mona NEG be.PRES NEG fine 'Mona isn't fine. *Mona n'a zo ket brav. Mona NEG PRT be.PRES NEG fine 'Mona isn't fine.'

The unacceptability of (37) is most naturally reduced to the descriptive observation that ne and a compete for the same structural position, presumably C (see Hendrick 1991). This claim in turn suggests that the distribution of Breton a zo is sensitive to the presence of the (affirmative) complementizer a. While the Welsh sydd is apparently triggered by a following trace, the Breton a zo is restricted to co-occur with a trace indirectly; it is limited to appearing with a, which itself only appears with traces in affirmative clauses; hence the restricted distribution of a entails only co-occurring with a trace in affirmatives. Let us posit the language-specific rules in (38) to account for the behaviour of the Breton copula. (38)

Breton: a (e)o = > a z o

The Breton rule (38) is purely morphophonemic in that it only changes the phonological shape of the copula when adjacent to the complementizer a; the Welsh sydd not only changes the shape of the copula but has a syntactic effect as well because it carries an index licensing traces. The Breton preverbal particle a in (37) is in C and is co-indexed with a subject. It, rather than the functional copula, serves to license the trace in subject position for the ECP, as I have argued in Hendrick (1988). The change in the shape of the Breton formative is syntactically inert because it does not alter a syntactically relevant dimension of the form. Welsh, however, behaves differently: the suppletive verb stem serves as an antecedent governor for the ECP and Telegraph eliminates functional categories such as C and AGR in its favour because of its position on the Pesetsky-style optimality hierarchy. Corroborating evidence for the treatment of the Breton copula offered here comes from a copula form that is reserved for locatives.

Suppletion in copulas (39)

Singular 1st emaon 2nd emaout 3rd eman

87

Plural emaomp emaoc'h emaint

These forms should be analysed as a substantive copula. I do not place this form in the paradigm of the grammatical copula bezan; rather, I regard it as a substantive verb formed on the stem ema 'here'. This substantive copula does not appear readily with adjectives but to the extent that it does so marginally, it does not require raising of the adjective to the copula. Thus, Press (1986) cites (40). (40)

?eman va breur fur. is my brother good 'My brother is good.'

My claim that eman is a lexical auxiliary converges with the analysis of Breton auxiliaries offered in Borsley et al. (this volume).

4 The distribution of Welsh mae If we contrast the paradigm of the Welsh copula with its Breton counterpart the presence of the Welsh mae is striking because, unlike sydd, it has no Breton counterpart. Welsh mae is of further interest because it is another suppletive form, and is limited to present affirmative contexts. We obviously need to ask what determines its distribution. Welsh mae has the lexical entry in (41).22 T (AU \\V 1 AGR 1 lfM 1 (41) mae, , , , , , + (y)r v J ' |_|_ [-past]\ [-person]\' Lwy This statement is intended to guarantee that mae appears in third-person present-tense structures. The specification that mae is inserted adjacent to the complementizer (y)r will insure that it surfaces only in affirmative clauses.23 In some dialects of spoken Welsh, mae need not co-occur with (y)r, although in formal Welsh it must. These facts will not follow simply by making the adjacency statement optional since Welsh contains interrogative and negative complementizers that we must prevent mae from co-occurring with. We can, however, account for this variation by appealing to the statement of left-edge requirements of mae. In formal Welsh, mae must be on the left edge of AGRP, as in (42), while in spoken Welsh mae must be on the left edge of CP, as in (43).

(42) (43)

LE(mae, AGRP) LE(mae, CP)

In spoken Welsh the left-edge requirement (43) of mae will be ordered higher

88

Randall Hendrick

than that of (y)r9 making it possible for Telegraph to delete (y)r. This treatment makes the distribution of mae dependent on the adjacent complementizer (much as our analysis of Breton a zo does). We correctly predict that when any complementizer other than the affirmative declarative complementizer is present in Welsh, mae will be suppressed in favour of the regular form ydy. Specifically, the negative complementizer (na(d) in formal Welsh, d- in spoken Welsh), or the interrogative complementizer (a null complementizer in spoken Welsh, a in formal Welsh) will both prevent the appearance of mae. Rouveret (this volume) takes a very different approach to the distribution of mae. In essence, he looks for a syntactic/semantic explanation for why mae is limited to affirmative declarative present-tense sentences. The basis of his explanation is in many respects appealing. Rouveret embeds his analysis within a framework similar to Diesing's (1992), which distinguishes stage-level predicates, which have a spatio-temporal ('Davidsonian') argument in need of binding, from individual-level predicates, which lack such a spatio-temporal argument. Diesing (1992) argues that some subjects are VP-internal while others are external. Subjects of stage-level predicates are VP-internal; subjects of individual-level predicates are external to the VP. The motivation behind this division in the class of subjects is the claim that stage-level predicates have an external 'spatiotemporal' argument that is bound. Individual-level predicates lack such a spatiotemporal argument and thereby permit the subject to appear in an argument position external to the VP. Following Carlson (1977), stage-level predicates are transient, while individual-level predicates are relatively stable temporally. Applying Diesing's general analysis to Welsh, Rouveret suggests that mae is a complex form containing the copula and a clitic able to bind a spatio-temporal argument; as such, mae does not appear with individual-level predicates or in structures that have an extra operator available to bind the spatio-temporal argument. The Welsh ydy appears in structures that have an extra operator such as the negative, interrogative or past-tense operators that all serve to license a spatio-temporal argument. Attractive though it is, I do not accept Rouveret's analysis here. On my view morphosyntactic properties of complementizers are relevant to the distribution of mae, rather than the syntactic/semantic character of the predicate. The literature on stage-level and individual-level predicates distinguishes between transitory attributes such as being sad from more permanent ones such as being tall. Yet no such typology of attributes can be correlated with the distribution of mae and ydy. Both stage- and individual-level predicates co-occur with mae in the present affirmative: (44)

Mae Gareth yn drist. is Gareth PRT sad 'Gareth is sad.'

Suppletion in copulas (45)

89

Mae'r bachgen yn dal. is-the boy PRT tall T h e boy is tall.'

The facts of Welsh should be contrasted with those of Irish as described in Doherty (1992). Doherty, like Rouveret, argues that there is variation in the copula that reduces to the stage-/individual-level distinction. Yet the argument in the Irish case is considerably stronger for the reason that the interpretation of the predicates arguably plays a role in the variation of the copula. It is precisely this kind of evidence in Welsh that we lack. Rouveret avoids this problem by suggesting that the stage-/individual-level distinction is not a property of the predicate itself but of the particle that embeds it. From this point of view the particle yn has a semantic structure that introduces a spatio-temporal argument and makes the predicate embedded under it a stagelevel predicate. Now Carlson in part used perception verbs in English to motivate the individual-/stage-level distinction. Carlson's generalization is that under certain perception verbs like see, only a stage-level gerund, one that is transitory, is acceptable. If the particle yn effectively turns all predicates into stage-level predicates by adding a spatio-temporal argument, the two semantic classes of predicates should behave in a uniform manner under perception verbs like see. Yet (46) is acceptable but (47) appears to be semantically odd, much as it is in English, although judgements here are subtle and must be handled cautiously.24 (46)

(47)

Gwelaf i see + PRES I 'I see John Gwelaf i see + PRES I 'I see John

John yn dod ataf i. John PRT come to me coming to me.' John yn dal. John PRT tall being tall.'

If correct and systematic, these kinds of fact would pose a difficulty for Rouveret's syntactic/semantic account for the alternation between mae and ydy.

5 'Anomalous' instances of sydd My treatment of the Celtic copulas outlined in section 2 assumed that subjects of unergative verbs are projected external to the VP while subjects of predicate adjectives are projected in small clauses internal to the VP. 25 The unergatives lead me to deny the correctness of Koopman and Sportiche's (1991) VP Internal Subject Hypothesis. Instead I believe that subjects are given a thematic role compositionally from the verb phrase and the aspectual phrase, in the spirit of Tenny (1987). On this view subjects raise from the highest aspectual phrase to be licensed by Case Theory. 26

90

Randall Hendrick

The terms of the analysis I am advocating allow three specifier positions in which subjects could conceivably occur: specifier of ASPP, the (functional) aspectual verb, specifier of T and specifier of AGR. The left-edge requirement of T prevents the specifier of AGR from having a subject at PF. 27 Of the three positions that remain, two (specifier of ASPP and specifier of the aspectual verb) typically are not positions for Case-licensing with the result that a clause has a single subject. This is purely a morphosyntactic fact, not a semantic one. Other theories, such as Diesing (1990) and Rouveret (this volume), also recognize multiple subject positions, but these positions are semantically distinguished with the lower position reserved for indefinites. If there were a way to Case-license an NP in the specifier of the other functional head, we could have more than one subject given our assumptions about clausal structure, and, I suggest, they would have no distinguishing semantic properties. As it happens, Welsh has the means to license a subject in the specifier of ASPP; in such structures we have clauses with two 'subjects', and there is no observable restriction on the definiteness of those subjects. Awbery (1977) describes what she terms some 'anomalous' occurrences of sydd. The sentences in (48) and (49) exemplify the construction that Awbery has in mind. (48)

(49)

y dyn y mae Wyn wedi bod yn son amdano the man PRT be.PRES Wyn PRT be PRT talking about.3SG 'the man that Wyn has been talking about' y dyn sydd a Wyn wedi bod yn son amdano the man be.PRES with Wyn PRT be PRT talk about.3SG 'the man that Wyn has been talking about'

Given our discussion of the distribution of sydd in section 3, we can infer with some confidence that the example in (49) must have a structure in which a trace is to the right of sydd in subject position. Yet Wyn is the logical/agentive subject of this sentence and appears to the left and outside the VP bod yn son amdano. We can make sense of these by giving this sentence the structure in (50).

Suppletion in copulas

91

(50)

bod

Wyn,

ASP ASP

wedi v bod

VP ASPP ASP

VP

To produce the standard (48) Wyn raises from [SPEC, ASPP] to [SPEC, TP] to receive Case. Bod (realized as mae) raises to T and AGR, where it satisfies its leftedge requirements at PF. An operator co-indexed to the NP y dyn binds a variable functioning as the object of the preposition amdano. The anomalous relative in (49) results if another Case-assigner, the preposition a, is inserted, to Case-license Wyn in [SPEC, ASPP]. This leaves [SPEC, TP] vacant. The object of the preposition is then free to raise to [SPEC, TP] and then to the [SPEC, CP]. Because there is a trace in the subject position, bod takes the form sydd. Essentially (49) involves a structure with two 'subject positions' made possible by the presence of the extra Case-licenser. The logical subject in such structures appears as the specifier of the aspectual phrase where it is projected and receives its thematic role. Yet crucially this subject is a proper name and definite. If this is the correct analysis of sentences like (49), then the anomalous relative

92

Randall Hendrick

construction poses a challenge to theories that claim that the subject positions are semantically distinguished, with the lower position reserved for indefinites.28

6 Conclusion In the Standard Theory of Chomsky (1965) and Chomsky and Halle (1968), readjustment rules mediated the interface between syntax and phonology and accounted for idiosyncratic changes in a particular lexical item when concatenated with affixes, such as the replacement of go+PAST by went. In general, it has been assumed since the highly influential work of Aronoff (1976) that such irregular forms are lexically listed and not the result of re-adjustment rules. Nevertheless the spirit of the Standard Theory's claim that irregularity of these forms is syntactically inert has generally been preserved. I have argued that phenomena like suppletion, which re-adjustment was held to account for, could potentially have syntactic effects. In particular I have defended the claim that the suppletion in the third-person form of the Welsh copula has a strong syntactic effect, contributing to the licensing of empty categories for the purposes of the ECP. Of course, this conclusion contrasts sharply with a variety of views that take syntax to be immune from the morphology of words, as in, for example, Di Sciullo and Williams (1986). It is also worth pointing out that it stands at odds with theories such as Halle and Marantz's (1992) that relegate suppletion to the spelling-out of abstract syntactic elements at some postsyntactic, morphological level. Instead I have argued that suppletive forms must be present at LF, where principles like the ECP are checked. This conclusion about suppletion is part of a larger working hypothesis that identifies morphosyntactic variation as the locus of differences in the syntax of copulas both between languages and within a single language. This position is forced on us if we maintain that the copula is semantically vacuous; any variation it exhibits must come from the interface of syntax with PF. Evidence for the importance of morphosyntactic variation can be drawn from the behaviour of the Welsh copula as contrasted to its Breton counterpart with respect to adjacent complementizers and traces. Morphosyntactic variation is also at the root of the suppletion within a language as my discussion of the Welsh forms of bod (ydy, mae and sydd) has tried to show. Even the number and the character of the subjects of bod is reduced to morphosyntactic variation.

Notes 1 Without tarring them in any way with the positions defended here, I would like to thank my friends Gwen Awbery, Bob Borsley, Melynda Dunigan, Joe Emonds, Steve Harlow,

Suppletion in copulas

93

Alec Marantz, Jim McCloskey, David Pesetsky, Alain Rouveret and Gert Webelhuth for their thoughts on many of the issues touched on here. Carnie (1993), in a fascinating treatment of Irish, follows a similar objective. His work places the morphosyntactic variation in features of the Irish tense system rather than in the lexical/functional distinction I appeal to here. I leave to future work which of these avenues is to be preferred. Doherty's treatment reduces the syntactic differences between these two copulas to a semantic difference in stage- and individual-level predicates. Carnie (1993) shows that important empirical problems dog such a reduction, just as Schmitt (1992) does for similar attempts in Spanish and Portuguese. I take the sentence-initial particle to be an instance of C. See Rouveret (1990) for a different point of view. The examples in (3) and (4) are adapted from Williams (1980) and Sproat (1985) respectively. The verb gweithio in (5) is termed a 'verbal noun' in traditional descriptions. For the purposes of this chapter I will follow Sproat (1985), Sadler (1988) and Borsley (1993) in taking these elements to be verbs. The preverbal particle yn is homophonous to the preposition yn as exemplified in (i). (i)

Mae'r ferch yn y ty. be.PRES-the woman in the house 'The woman is in the house.'

See Rouveret (this volume) for another view. Harlow (1989) shows that a set of phrasal domains in Welsh also trigger mutation: essentially nouns adjacent to phrasal boundaries undergo consonant mutation, as in (i). (i)

Mae [PP yn yr ardd] [NP gi mawr]. is in the garden dog big 'Here is a big dog in the garden.'

(ci)

The phenomenon is pursued further in Borsley and Tallerman (1996). I set it aside here as tangential to my main concern. More traditionally it is claimed that a head can only Case-license to its right in Welsh. The line of thought I am pursuing factors out the linear order requirement from the licensing requirement. We may also have to say that the AGR + T + V complex raises to C, or that C lowers. I will assume the latter hypothesis here. I follow Pesetsky in assuming that X counts as standing on the left edge of a constituent YP so long as X is part of some W° that is adjacent to [yp. T in Breton is not specified LE(T, CP) and as a consequence appears to be marked --LE(T, CP). It does appear to carry the specification LE(T, AGRP), however. For expository convenience I assume throughout this chapter the version of the ECP outlined in Chomsky (1986), where the concepts L-mark, barrier and inheritance are introduced and defined. The verb mae is a functional verb in the sense of Abney (1987) embedding ASPP in this structure.

94

Randall Hendrick

10 One could frame this analysis in terms of the system sketched in Chomsky (1993) by letting yn mawr be a complex lexical form that must have the features of yn checked by raising to ASP. 11 If this assumption turns out to be incorrect, we would conclude that the asymmetry between predicative adjectives and verbs reduces to the asymmetry in compounding familiar from traditional grammars of Welsh of proper compounds (that induce consonant mutation) and improper compounds (that do not). See Thorne (1993) on this distinction. In Hendrick (1993) I provide some evidence that the asymmetry at issue here is structural. See note 23 for a brief summary of that argument. As Bob Borsley points out to me, the behaviour of unaccusative verbs and raising verbs will prove decisive on this score. I set aside the proper treatment of unaccusative verbs for reasons of space; I hope to address this topic in a subsequent paper. Raisingto-subject predicates should parallel the predicate adjectives. If raising predicates appear in the periphrastic construction with bod yn, we would expect the raising verb to move up to the aspectual particle yn, just as predicate adjectives do. The evaluation of this prediction is complicated by the fact that there are few clear cases of raising predicates in Welsh and even fewer that appear in the periphrastic construction. Apparent counterexamples to the prediction would have to be reanalysed as involving control of PRO, movement to an A' position, or as simplex clauses, unless one decides to adopt the type of analysis of raising predicates in Chomsky (1986), where the raising verb itself serves as a derived antecedent of the raised subject. This latter option would treat the raising predicates as parallel to the Welsh suppletive form sydd (be) that I discuss in the text below. The situation is more straightforward in Breton where there are clear raising verbs that appear in periphrastic constructions. In such structures the raising predicate undergoes head movement to fuse with the aspectual particle that is an affix. The Breton raising predicate seblant (seem) has the periphrastic form bezan (be) seblant + et (seemed). 12 This position is motivated in Hendrick (1991) and Rouveret (this volume). A generally similar view is sketched in Borer (1993). 13 These examples are adapted from Trepos (1980: 109-10). 14 I assume that Breton has the specification LE(T, AGRP). Carnie and Harley (1994) makes a similar argument that predicate adjectives and nominals raise to tense in Irish. 15 Grimshaw (1993) explores subject-auxiliary inversion in a similar spirit. 16 Here Pesetsky follows the lead of work in prosodic morphology; see, for example, McCarthy and Prince (1993). 17 In Hendrick (1994) I attribute this preference to the Elsewhere Principle: because the synthetic agreement has more grammatical features, such as person and number, defining it the deletion operation affects it before the a in C. In the structures carrying the suppletive sydd and a complementizer, a will not surface in C because it has more grammatical features, such as Case, than the copula which I take to be vacuous, predictable from its co-occurrence with the preverbal particles yn and wedi. The Elsewhere Principle leads the grammar to prefer the elimination of a rather than sydd. While attractive, this approach says nothing about the behaviour of the complementizer y that I discuss in the next note.

Suppletion in copulas

95

18 In formal varieties of Welsh one finds sydd co-occurring with the complementizers. As (22) would lead us to expect, the complementizer that sydd appears with is y rather than a (see Williams 1980: 96). This suggests that we should integrate y into our hierarchy by the minimally different (i) or (ii). Hierarchy (i) will yield the dialect in which sydd precludes both complementizers a and y; (ii) will produce the dialect which permits sydd to co-occur with y but not with a. (i) (ii)

Recoverability Principle < LE(sydd, CP) < LE(a, CP), LE(y CP) < LE(SAGR, CP) Recoverability Principle < LE(sydd, CP) V LE(y CP) < LE(a, CP) < LE(SAGR, CP)

19 This example is taken from Gramadeg Cymraeg Cyfoes (1985: 78). 20 This paradigm is adapted from Press (1986: 146). 21 It only co-occurs with indefinites, parallel to Welsh oes (although eus is regularized so that it alternates with eo in all clauses). 22 I assume with Kayne (1989b) that first person = [+ speaker, + person], second person = [-speaker, + person] and third person = [—speaker, -person]. Tense = [ + PAST] and present = [-PAST].

23 The Welsh mae does not co-occur with topicalized predicate adjectives; instead the form ydy appears (e.g. (i)). Topicalized predicate adjectives and VPs behave differently; the latter surface with mae (e.g. (ii)). In Hendrick (1993) I attribute this contrast to the impossibility of the complementizer yr in structures with predicate adjectives for ECP reasons. (i)

(ii)

(iii)

Hir oedden nhw. long be.PAST.3pL they 'They were long.' Darllen mae Sian. read be.PRES Sian 'Sian is reading.' Wedi adrodd roedd e? PRT recite be.PAST he 'Had he recited?'

Mae replaces (y)r + bod in the third-person singular. There is a trace of a raised subject to be licensed in (i) but not in (ii)-(iii), in line with the hypothesized structural asymmetry in how subjects are projected. In (i) the complementizer must delete to avoid making the C' category a barrier by minimality. The AP itself is not a barrier, Adj having raised to the particle yn and L-marked the AP. (The particle yn systematically deletes in fronted constructions as illustrated by the contrast (ii)-(iii) for reasons I cannot explain in a principled fashion.) The trace is licensed by chain composition under strict government (not m-command), as discussed in Chomsky (1986b). Because yr deletes in (i) ydy surfaces; no such deletion occurs in (ii) and we find mae. See Rouveret (this volume) for another line of explanation. 24 Example (46) is borrowed from Jones and Thomas (1977).

96

Randall Hendrick

25 I ignore here the correct analysis of unaccusative verbs in Welsh, a topic I hope to address in future work. 26 Rouveret (this volume) adopts a very similar analysis. 27 Here I assume that the finite verb raises to AGR but not to C, as I argue in Hendrick (1994). Several of the arguments to the same conclusion for Irish offered in McCloskey (forthcoming) can be duplicated in Welsh. 28 Of course, one could avoid this puzzle by claiming that there is yet another position within the VP that is reserved for indefinite subjects. The problem noted in the text only arises if one accepts the claim that the lowest position that subjects are projected in is outside VP and within ASPP. For reasons of space I do not treat the possessive construction that Rouveret analyses as evincing a privileged position for indefinite subjects. I hope to treat them in a subsequent article.

3

Fronting constructions in Welsh

Maggie Tallerman

Like all the Celtic languages, Welsh very commonly displays word orders other than the canonical VSO, the unmarked surface word order.1 Traditional Welsh grammar distinguishes between two constructions which are non-VSO: the socalled 'mixed' and 'abnormal' word orders. Both display what, in a pretheoretical sense, we might call 'fronting' of some constituent, although the pragmatic function of this fronting is typically claimed to be very different in each case (see, for example, Fife and King 1991; Watkins 1991; and other papers in Fife and Poppe 1991). In this chapter I consider the derivation of each of these constructions from the point of view of the principles-and-parameters framework of generative grammar. I will show that the 'mixed' construction, which I refer to as the cleft construction in the text, is best analysed in terms of the CP-recursion analysis of Rizzi and Roberts (1989) and Cardinaletti and Roberts (1991). We will see that the clefted constituent is sited in the specifier position of a CP which is itself the complement to a higher complementizer. On the other hand the 'abnormal' sentences (a term I keep for the sake of convenience) actually involve adjunction to a matrix CP, and no CP-recursion is involved. The chapter is structured as follows: section 1 outlines the data and illustrates the major differences between the two construction types. Section 2 discusses some previous generative treatments of one of the types of fronting under discussion, the cleft, and shows that these analyses share a common problem when more data are taken into consideration. Section 3 presents an alternative analysis of both the cleft and the abnormal constructions, and section 4 defends this analysis in detail.

1 The data Sentences which do not have the unmarked VSO word order in Welsh occur in what are traditionally considered to be two distinct clause types, known as the mixed sentence (here referred to as the cleft type) and the abnormal sentence. The examples in (1) and (2) illustrate these two clause types respectively, in each case showing a fronted subject NP: 97

98

Maggie Tallerman

(1)

a. Myfi a gafodd anrheg. me PRT got.3sG gift 'It was me that got a gift.' b. Y dynion a werthodd y ci. the men PRT sold.3sG the dog I t was the men who sold the dog.'

(cleft)

(2)

a. Myfi a gefais anrheg. me PRT got. ISG gift 'I got a gift.' b. Y dynion a werthasant y ci. the men PRT sold.3p the dog T h e men sold the dog.'

(abnormal)

The clause type in (2) is commonly claimed to have no emphatic value: it appears to be a topicalization rather than a focalization of some constituent, and is typically translated into unmarked SVO order in English. See, for example, the discussion of these constructions in Fife and King 1991, and the remarks made by Williams (1980: 168). On the other hand, the construction in (1) is typically translated as a cleft, and results in contrastive focus on the fronted constituent. The major properties of the two constructions are outlined in (3): (3)

Cleft sentences a. Major function is to focus fronted constituent, although take on function of NP topicalization since demise of the abnormal sentence. b. Productive in all recorded periods of the language. c. [-agreement] - a fronted subject does not agree with the verb in either person (la) or number (lb): the verb always appears in its thirdperson singular form. d. Most constituents may occur in initial position; not restricted to NP. e. The negator is placed before the fronted constituent. f. The construction is not iterative: only one constituent can be fronted. g. Fronting can occur in subordinate clauses. h. The fronted XP is typically preceded by a complementizer (etymologically a copula) in subordinate clauses, and in earlier periods, in main clauses too. Abnormal sentences a. Exist to 'topicalize' some constituent(s): no focus value (Fife and King 1991). b. Only productive in Middle Welsh (although possibly existed up to this century; see Williams 1980: 168). c. [ +agreement] - a fronted subject triggers full agreement in person (2a) and number (2b) on the inflected verb.

Fronting constructions

99

d. Any constituent may occur in initial position; not restricted to NP. e. The negator is placed between the fronted item and the main verb. f. The construction is iterative: as many as five constituents have been found to be fronted. g. Fronting cannot occur in subordinate clauses. h. The fronted XP is never preceded by a complementizer or copula. Of course, from a purely formal point of view, there is no superficial distinction between the two constructions in many cases: if the fronted constituent is singular, if there is no negation, and if the constituent is fronted from a main clause, then it is only on functional grounds that there will be anything to choose. However, where there are surface points of divergence, then we can clearly tell that there is something to be accounted for. I do not intend to investigate the pragmatic functions of the two constructions; see many of the papers in Fife and Poppe (1991) for such discussion. It does seem clear, however, that the abnormal construction, which was so startlingly prevalent and productive in Middle Welsh literature - to the extent that the majority of sentences are not verb-initial - was a stylistic device which did not generally produce contrastive focus on the fronted constituent(s). As an example of this consider (4), a typical example of Biblical Welsh: (4)

A'i ddisgyblion a ddaethant ato ac a'i deffroasant. and.3sG.M disciples PRT came.3PL to.3sG.M and PRT-3SG.M woke.3PL 'And his disciples came to him and woke him.' (Matthew viii, 25)

Although no construction with the particular syntactic form of the abnormal construction exists in Modern Welsh, the 'mixed' sentence has a dual role: it exists mainly to cleft a focused constituent, but also can convey non-emphatic topicalization. To that extent the modern cleft construction seems to have taken over the function of the abnormal construction. This covers points (a) and (b) in (3); I will briefly illustrate the remaining points of similarity and divergence. Point (c) is one of the major distinctions between the two constructions, and must clearly be accounted for in any analysis of them: why do we find subject agreement in the abnormal type but not in clefts? Since the cleft construction has exactly the same superficial form as the relative clause in Welsh (at least in the case of clefted NPs) it seems likely that the same syntactic processes underlie both constructions. In terms of point (d), there seems to be little distinction: not only NP can be fronted, but also PP, VP and AP (although the latter is not good for all speakers in modern clefts).

100

Maggie Tallerman

(5)

a. [PP Ym Mangor] y siaradais i llynedd. in Bangor PRT spoke. ISG I last.year 'It was in Bangor that I spoke last year.' b. [yP Pori'r comin a'r cloddiau] a wnaeth browse-the common and-the hedges PRT did.3sG Ifas am y lleill. Ifas for the others 'Ifas browsed the common and the hedges for the others.' c. A [Ap chalet] uu yr arueu ereill. and hard was the arms other. 'And the other arms were hard.' (Ystorya de Carlo Magno,2 85.8)

In (5a) and (5b) we have wide focus of PP and of VP from Modern Welsh, both cleft examples, and in (5), a fronted AP from Middle Welsh, considered to be an abnormal sentence by Fife and King (1991: 82), who cite the example. Point (3e) concerns the different placings of negators in the two constructions. Example (6a) illustrates the negation placed before the fronted constituent in the cleft construction, and (6b), the negation placed after the fronted constituent in the abnormal construction. We will see in section 4.4 that the only negation which is possible in the latter case is clausal negation, whilst the cleft construction can have not only the cleft constituent itself negated, as here, but also may have clausal negation. This distinction is another important point of divergence between the two constructions, and is predicted by the analysis in the main body of the chapter. (6)

a. Nid/dimy NEG

dyn a

ddaeth.

(cleft)

the man COMP came.3sG

I t wasn't the man who came.' b. Y dyn ny daeth. the man NEG came.3sG T h e man did not come.'

(abnormal)

(Evans 1989: 180) Point (30 concerns whether or not there can be more than one constituent in the fronted position. In the Middle Welsh abnormal construction, there could be, as (7) shows: (7)

Ac [wrth henny] [er rey ereyll] [en kyflavn o ofyn] and at that the ones other PRED full of fear [adav e dynas] a orugant. leave the city PRT did.3PL 'And at that, those others, full of fear, left the city.' (Brut y Brenhined, Llanstephan MS. 1 Version,3 712-13)

Fronting constructions

101

However, in contrast, only one constituent can be clefted, as (8) shows: (8)

a. Gwnaeth y rhai eraill adael y ddinas. did.3sG the ones other leave the city Those others left the city.' b. * Dywedodd mai [y rhai eraill] [adael y ddinas] a wnaeth. said.3sG PRT the ones other leave the city PRT did.3sG ('He said that those others left the city.') c. Dywedodd mai [NP y rhai eraill] a wnaeth said.3sG PRT the ones other PRT did.3sG e adael y ddinas. leave the city 'He said that it was those others who left the city.' d. Dywedodd mai [Vp gadael y ddinas] a wnaeth y said.3sG PRT leave the city PRT did.3sG the rhai eraill e ones other 'He said that it was leave the city that those others did.'

Example (8a) shows normal VSO order. Example (8b) is the cleft equivalent of (part of) (7), and two constituents have been clefted, namely the subject and the VP (non-finite verb plus object), giving the ungrammatical result shown. If either one of these constituents is clefted, the result is grammatical, as (8c, d) show. Not to pre-empt discussion, I indicate the canonical position of the cleft constituent in unmarked word order with e. Clearly, any analysis of the fronting constructions must account for the facts in (7) and (8): why should it be that the abnormal construction allows several fronted constituents, but the cleft construction only one? Point (3g) concerns the occurrence or non-occurrence of fronting in embedded clauses. The abnormal construction appears to be a root construction, only occurring in main clauses, whilst the cleft construction occurs in both main and embedded clauses. Of course, it is difficult to be certain that a construction which is no longer productive has or does not have a particular grammatical property, but since the abnormal construction is so prevalent in Middle Welsh texts, and does not occur anywhere in subordinate clauses there, we can be fairly certain that it would have been ungrammatical. (See also Watkins 1977 and Fife and King 1991: 137.) On the other hand, the cleft construction occurs freely in embedded clauses: (8c, d) illustrate with a fronted NP and VP respectively, and (9) shows a clefted PP in an embedded clause:

102

Maggie Tallerman

(9)

Mi wn i mai [PP yng Nghymru] y mae Gwent. PRT know I PRT in Wales PRT is Gwent 'I know that it's in Wales that Gwent is.'

The examples in (8) and (9) also illustrate the particle mai, which occurs in embedded clefts in the position immediately preceding the focused constituent. However, as Jones and Thomas (1977) point out, this particle is not necessarily overt in Colloquial Welsh: (10)

Mae Mair yn gwybod John oedd yn chwerthin. is Mair PROG know John was PROG laugh 'Mair knows that it was John who was laughing.' (Jones and Thomas 1977: 295)

In earlier periods of the language, there could also be an item preceding the fronted constituent in main-clause clefts, although this was optional even in Old Welsh. This example is a cleft from Middle Welsh: (11)

Ysmi a'e heirch, is me PRT-her seeks.3SG 'It's me who seeks her.' (The White Book Mabinogion* 479.29-30)

The item ys which precedes the fronted constituent is a copula, as indeed was the modern cleft particle mai (and also taw, the cleft particle used in South Welsh) in earlier stages of the language. Although no particle precedes the cleft constituent in declarative main clauses in the modern language, we will see in section 4.3 that reflexes of it appear in other cleft clause types, and we will discuss the role of the 'copula' particle in permitting adjunction in embedded clauses. This concludes the illustration of the major types of data which form the basis for our discussion. To summarize, the most important properties to be accounted for in any analysis of these two constructions are their agreement patterns; the appearance of recursively fronted constituents in the abnormal construction, but not the cleft; the appearance of the copula (or the complementizer) in the cleft; the restriction of the abnormal construction to root clauses; and the negation facts.

2 The cleft construction: previous analyses 2.1 An outline of some generative treatments As far as I am aware, previous analyses of the Welsh fronting constructions within a generative framework have not discussed the distinction between the abnormal and the cleft sentence types (see, for example, Harlow 1981; Sproat 1985; Sadler 1988; Hendrick 1988, 1990a; Rouveret 1991, this volume). Instead,

Fronting constructions

103

authors confine their attentions to the cleft construction, which of course has a parallel in relative clauses, at least in terms of clefting of NPs: so, for example, the cleft sentence in (lb) has the same superficial form as the relativized subject NP in (12), which displays the same lack of number agreement as the cleft construction: (12)

y dynion a werthoddy ci the men PRT sold.3sG the dog 'the men who sold the dog'

However, we can also cleft PP, AP and VP, so the constructions are not identical.5 With the possible exception of Rouveret 1991, previous accounts have also failed to discuss the embedded clefts, and in particular the position and analysis of the mai constituent. This is, however, crucial to the analysis of the construction presented here.6 What I will call the standard Government-Binding (GB) analyses of clefts have mostly followed Harlow's (1981) outline rather closely, and have the fronted constituent in Spec, CP (or some earlier analogue, such as Topic position in S"), the preverbal particle a or y in complementizer position, and, in the case of fronted subjects, a gap in canonical subject position in the clause: (13)

S'VXP

(Harlow 1981: 222; Hendrick 1988: 201) (14)

PRT

+

V...

ef

(Sproat 1985: 192; Sadler 1988: 188)

104

Maggie Tallerman

(15)

S"

TOP

(Hendrick 1990a: 147) The authors cited typically consider the fronted constituent to be base-generated in the extraclausal position, where it is followed by what is usually considered to be a complementizer a or y which binds a trace in the canonical subject, etc. position: this is assumed by Harlow (1981) and by Hendrick (1988). Stump (1989) also has essentially this analysis of the topicalized subject in Breton, a construction very similar in form, if not in pragmatic function, to the Welsh clefted subject. An alternative analysis assumes that the particles a or y are not complementizers, but simply verbal particles adjoined to the verb (as in Sadler's account). In this case there is an empty operator in C. The constituency facts concerning the 'complementizers' are notoriously hard to test, since these particles tend not to occur naturally in spoken Welsh. Perhaps because of this, not much evidence to support either position has appeared in the literature. However, in a later paper, Harlow (1983: 83) argues against the complementizer analysis by claiming that it is not possible to detach the particle from the rest of the clause, so giving no analogues to the right-node raising type of construction in English. / think that, but I'm not sure whether, John will come, nor clausal co-ordinations where only one clause has an overt complementizer: Jan said that Mark is clever and May is stupid. If such results obtain, we could certainly assume that the ungrammaticality in Welsh is due to the clitic status of a and y: since the particles must be cliticized to a following finite verb then Harlow's findings are predictable. We can also add that no adverbial may intervene between the complementizer and the following clause, as shown in (16), but this restriction is equally compatible with an analysis where the particles are situated in C° but must be able to cliticize to an adjacent verb.7 (16)

a. *Dywedoddef y, gyda Haw, bydd yn gadael. said.3sG he coMPwith handbe.FUT.3sG PROG leave 'He said that, by the way, he will be leaving.'

Fronting constructions

105

b. *Mae hi'n siwr y heddiw bydd y plant is she.PRED sure COMP today be.FUT.3sG the children yn swnllyd. PRED noisy

'She's sure that today the children will be noisy.' In what follows I adopt what I see as the recent consensus over the position of the particles in the Celtic languages, and analyse them as complementizers; see also Hendrick (1988: 144), Rouveret (1991: 376f.) and McCloskey (1992b). I move on now to discussion of the main problem shared by the analyses discussed in this section.

2.2 A problem and a proposed solution Each of the foregoing analyses suffers from the same drawback when taken at face value: they are incapable of accounting for the embedded cleft constructions illustrated in (8) and (9), because in each case the fronted material, whether it is analysed as Topic, daughter of S", or whatever, follows rather than precedes the complementizer mai. In other words, if mai is in the C-slot, where is the fronted material? Exactly the same problem emerges if we translate the analyses into more recent GB terms: if the fronted material is in Spec, CP, then the natural assumption is that the complementizer mai should be in C: but this, of course, is the wrong way round, as we see in (8) and (9). This observation is taken by Rouveret (1991: 372f.) as evidence that a clefted NP cannot be in Spec, CP, but instead should be in a position internal to the clause, namely [Spec, AgrP]. We return to this point in sections 4.2 and 4.4.8 There are various indications that mai is indeed a complementizer. It occurs only in embedded contexts, in complement clauses to verbs, and these clauses must be + finite and -wh. The counterparts to mai found in negative clefts, nid, used in main clauses, and nad, in embedded clauses, are parallel to the ordinary clausal negators found in Literary Welsh, ni(d) in main clauses and na{d) in embedded clauses.9 These are uncontroversially complementizers, and the formal identity between the cleft and ordinary negators suggests that both are members of the same category. Mai is in complementary distribution with nad, and also with the interrogative cleft complementizer of Literary Welsh, ai (see section 4.3). It seems clear, then, that mai is another member of the set of complementizers. Returning to topicalization, note that standard GB analyses of English topicalization have similarly failed to predict the word order facts there, as recently outlined by Authier (1992). As is well known, English also has the topicalized constituent in postcomplementizer position, as in (17):

106

Maggie Tallerman

(17)

a. I knew that Irish, she couldn't speak, b. *Iknew Irish, that she couldn't speak.

This has led to suggestions in the literature that rather than having a topic in the C-projection, or external to it, instead we must treat embedded topicalizations as adjoined to IP in English (see, for example, Baltin 1982; Lasnik and Saito 1992). However, an alternative analysis has recently been proposed by several researchers: this is to allow CP to be an iterative projection, so that a complementizer that might also take another CP as its complement. The fronted constituent would then be sited in the specifier position of the lower complement CP. This proposal is supported by data from embedded verb-second constructions in English and other Germanic languages (see Rizzi and Roberts 1989; Cardinaletti and Roberts 1991; Authier 1992; McCloskey 1992; Rouveret, this volume). In the Germanic and other European languages discussed in the references cited, it appears that the CP-recursion phenomenon is limited to the complements of certain verb classes such as bridge verbs: see McCloskey 1992 for extensive discussion. The higher C°-position in English is distinguished from the lower C°head in that the former always contains the complementizer that. The CP which is the complement to that can contain either a topicalized constituent or a negative polarity item such as never, only, under no circumstances; the latter type of phrase always triggers the subject-auxiliary inversion which is subsumed under the heading of embedded verb-second. A typical example is shown in (18), with the proposed derivation in (19): (18)

She said that under no circumstances could she learn Irish.

The proposal I will defend in section 4 is that the cleft phenomenon in Welsh also constitutes an example of CP-recursion, appearing in both embedded and main clauses. On the other hand the abnormal sentences do not have this structure: they are formed via adjunction of a phrase to CP. Section 3 sets out the proposed structures of each sentence type. I turn first to the analysis of the cleft construction.

107

Fronting constructions (19)

V

could

she learn Irish

3 The derivation of the cleft and the abnormal constructions 3.1 The cleft sentence: proposed derivation The basic clause structure which I am assuming for Welsh is as in (20): (20)

CP Spec

Subj

I leave aside here the question of which functional projection, Agr or Tense,10 should be higher in an analysis which separates these inflectional morphemes, since for the present purposes it is sufficient to simply consider the position of the fronted constituents in relation to the IP. In (20) the verb raises to 1° in order to pick up (or check) its inflectional features; see McCloskey's (forthcoming) discussion of Irish for arguments against the further movement of 1° to C° in that

108

Maggie Tallerman

language, and comments disfavouring such an approach for VSO languages generally. I assume, following Koopman and Sportiche (1991), that the subject is basegenerated in the VP projection. A further question not considered here is whether the subject is Case-marked in situ in VSO languages, as has been proposed for Welsh by Rouveret (1991) and Tallerman (1993a), and by McCloskey (1991b, forthcoming) for Irish, or whether it raises to the Spec position of a higher functional head (see Rouveret, this volume; and Bobaljik and Carnie, this volume). Given the word order variations illustrated by Rouveret, movement of the subject under certain circumstances seems the most promising approach. The structure I propose for an embedded cleft sentence such as that in (21) is shown in (22). I concentrate on fronted subjects as it is in these cases that we see most clearly the contrasts between the cleft and the abnormal sentence, as discussed in section 1. (21)

Dywedais i mai'r dynion a werthodd y ci. said.lsG I coMP-the men coMPsold.3sG the dog 'I said that it was the men who sold the dog.'

(22)

Here, the cleft constituent y dynion 'the men' is moved by w/z-movement from its underlying position in the specifier of VP to the cleft position in the specifier of the lower CP, possibly via some higher Spec position. Alternatively, we might consider a cleft constituent to be adjoined to CP, so that w/j-movement would move an empty Operator from the subject position into [Spec, CP]. However, as we will see in section 4.1, there is in fact evidence against this latter analysis of the cleft construction.

Fronting constructions

109

Either version of the CP-recursion analysis would overcome the problem raised earlier in connection with traditional generative analyses of clefts, namely that the position of the embedded cleft could not be in [Spec, CP] if the complementizer mai follows the fronted constituent. Recall that this is taken by Rouveret (1991) as evidence that the clefted XP must be in a specifier position internal to the clause. The problem concerning word order outlined in section 2.2 is overcome by the analysis in (22). We need to ask, though, whether there are further good reasons to adopt the CP-recursion analysis rather than the account proposed by Rouveret (1991). This is taken up in section 4. I will continue to illustrate largely with embedded cleft constructions, since the overt clefting complementizer mai in embedded clauses aids the reader's memory: only cleft and not abnormal sentences have such a complementizer. As we will see, the presence of the complementizer is not fortuitous; instead, its presence allows us to predict the full range of divergent behaviours in the two types of fronting. Matrix cleft constructions have no overt complementizer in the modern language, at least in declarative affirmative clauses. The structure I propose for these is the same as that in (22), but where the higher C°-position is normally empty. I return to these constructions in section 4.3. Two questions arise in connection with the derivation in (22). Firstly, what ensures that the recursion of CP is not unlimited? As Cardinaletti and Roberts (1991: 6) propose in connection with CP-recursion in Germanic, it is clear that the two expositions have different properties. In Welsh only the higher C° is filled by mai (or its counterparts in interrogative (section 4.3) and negative clauses (section 4.4)) and only mai and no other complementizer selects CP as a lexical property. The lower C°, like other complementizers, selects IP-complements. The second question concerns the possibility of moving a constituent to the higher specifier position via w/z-movement, that is, [Spec, CPi]. In principle we might expect that either a cleft XP might move to both positions, giving double clefting, or that one XP might move to the higher specifier position only. Both possibilities give a completely ungrammatical result: (23)

a. *Dywedais said.lsG b. *Dywedais said.lsG

i y ci mai'r dynion a werthodd. I the dog coMP-the men COMP sold.3sG i'r dynion mai a werthodd y ci. I-themen COMP COMP sold.3sG the dog

In (23a), movement would clearly lead to an ECP violation: under Relativized Minimality the cleft XP in the higher [Spec, CP] would be unable to antecedentgovern its trace; see Cardinaletti and Roberts (1991: 39, fn. 3). We therefore account for the ungrammaticality of (23a) via a general principle. Ian Roberts (p.c.) points out that (23b) is parallel to */ said under no circumstances that would he do that, and suggests that the ungrammaticality is due to the fact that neither that nor mai can license anything in their specifier position.

110

Maggie Tallerman

Before looking at the predictions made by the CP-recursion analysis of clefts, I will propose an analysis of the abnormal sentences; we will then be in a position to compare the predictions made concerning the two constructions. 3.2 The abnormal sentence: proposed derivation If we take the most salient feature of the abnormal sentence to be its restriction to root clauses, what analysis might account for this? Since any account of the abnormal construction should predict the possibility of multiple frontings, as shown in (7), it seems reasonable to assume that the fronted constituent does not have a 'dedicated' position such as some specifier, or a Topic node, but instead occupies an adjoined position. One hypothesis which seems to make exactly the right predictions concerns the inadmissibility of adjunction to argument categories. Following the proposal made by Chomsky (1986b) to this effect, McCloskey (1992) formulates what he calls the Adjunction Prohibition: (24) Adjunction Prohibition Adjunction to a phrase which is s-selected by a lexical head is ungrammatical. (McCloskey 1992: 11) The result of this general restriction is that no adjunction can occur to any argument of a lexical head. Since VP and IP do not constitute such arguments, being the complements of 1° and C° respectively, adjunction to these projections is predicted to be possible. A matrix CP is also a possible adjunction site, since of course it is not an argument of any head. Adjunction to an embedded CP, on the other hand, is predicted to be impossible, since embedded CPs are s-selected by lexical heads (V, A, etc.). Thus we have an account of the non-occurrence of the abnormal sentence in embedded clauses. Unlike the cleft construction, the abnormal sentence never contains a copula or complementizer such as mat cf. points (3h). This is good evidence that the abnormal sentence cannot be analysed via CP-recursion, since it does not contain a CP-selecting C°. Otherwise, even if such a complementizer were phonetically null, the abnormal sentence would be predicted to occur in embedded contexts.

Fronting constructions

111

We can now propose that the structure of the abnormal sentence is as in (25): (25)

CP XP

CP

Recursive adjunction to CP predicts that several constituents can appear in the fronted position in an abnormal sentence, thus giving a straightforward account of one of the main differences between the cleft and abnormal constructions. A question that immediately arises is whether ^-movement takes place in the derivation of the abnormal construction as it does in the cleft sentence. In section 4.2 we will see that there is evidence that it does not.

4 Defending the analysis 4.1 Adjunction to CP If the abnormal type of fronting cannot occur in embedded clauses, why is it licit for clefts to occur in an embedded context? The answer to this comes from the CP-recursion analysis of clefts proposed in section 3.1. In (22) the cleft constituent is not in an adjoined position, but in [Spec, CP], a position to which it has been moved by w/z-movement. Adjunction in the embedded clause in (21) is, however, perfectly possible: adverbials can freely adjoin to CP 2 in (22), since this is an embedded clause which is not selected by a lexical head but by a functional head, the complementizer mai. Thus the grammatical examples in (26) are not ruled out by the Adjunction Prohibition in (24): (26)

a. Mae hi'n ymddangos [CPi mai [CP2 fel arfer is she-PROG appear COMP as usual [CP2 yr is-ganghellor sy'n llongyfarch y myfyrwyr the vice-chancellor REL.is-PROG congratulate the students dosbarth cyntaf.]]] class first 'It appears that as usual it's the vice-chancellor who is congratulating the first-class students.'

112

Maggie Tallerman b. Mae'n debyg [CPi mai [CP2 oni cheir deddf eiddo is-PRED likely COMP unless obtain.PASS act property newydd [CP2Meibion Glyndwr a wneith achosi problemau.]]] new COMP make.FUT cause problems 'It's likely that unless a new property act is obtained, it's Meibion Glyndwr that will cause problems.'

Note, however, that any strings of constituents in a fronted position in an embedded clause must be able to be interpreted as follows: the final constituent is a cleft XP, and any preceding constituents are adjoined to CP 2 , the complement of mai. This is the case in (26). Compare this situation with that in (8b), repeated here as (27), where more than one constituent is moved by w/2-movement into the cleft position: (27)

*Dywedodd mai [y rhai eraill] [adael y ddinas] a wnaeth. said.3sG COMP the ones other leave the city COMP did.3sG 'He said that those others left the city.'

The result is ungrammatical. On the other hand the data in (26) are grammatical because they do have only one constituent in the cleft position, yr is-ganghellor 'the vice-chancellor' in (a), and Meibion Glyndwr in (b). The adverbials are not clefts here, but are adjoined to the lower CP, as shown. The analysis of the cleft construction presented in section 3.1 therefore makes the correct predictions about these data: since there is only one cleft position in (22), namely the specifier of CP 2 , this predicts that only one constituent can be clefted. CP 2 , selected by the clefting complementizer mai, can, however, have adverbials recursively adjoined to it. As we have seen, this does not violate the Adjunction Prohibition, and since the adverbials are not moving into the cleft position, [Spec, CP], in (26), such examples are fully grammatical. The difference between (26) and (27) is that in (27), we have two major constituents of the embedded clause both competing for the same [Spec, CP] landing site. Why is it not possible to interpret the first constituent as an adjoined XP, as in (26)? The answer must be that in (26) the adverbials are not moved into their adjoined position by w/j-movement but are base-generated11 in the position adjoined to CP; in (27), however, the two fronted constituents are part of the predicate-argument structure of the clause, and cannot be base-generated outside it. Such constituents from within the clause can only front via w/z-movement, and since there is only one [Spec, CP] landing-site for such constituents, it is entirely predictable that only one is allowed to be fronted. It is, however, possible to get one adverbial in the cleft position [Spec, CP], that is, moving to that position via ^-movement. Note that any strings of adverbials in an embedded clause must in fact be interpreted in the following way: since they are prevented from adjoining to a lexically selected CP, CPi, by the Adjunction

Fronting constructions

113

Prohibition, all adverbials except the final one are adjoined to CP 2 , a nons-selected CP, and the final one is interpreted as the cleft constituent. So in (28), the clefting complementizer mai, which creates a non-argument CP for the noncleft adverbial to adjoin to, is obligatory: (28)

a. Dywedodd o ddoe *(mai) [CP2 yfory [CP2 yn yr adran said.3sG he yesterday COMP tomorrow in the department y bydd y cyfarfod.]] COMP be.FUT.3sG the meeting 'He said yesterday*that it's in the department that the meeting will be tomorrow.' b. Dywedodd hi neithiwr *(mai) [CP2 eleni [CP2 mwy na said.3sG she last night COMP this year more than thebyg y bydd y plant yn gweithio'n galed.]] likely COMP be.FUT.3sG the children PROG work-PRED hard 'She said last night that this year, it's more than likely that the children will work hard.'

Without mai there would be no indication that the CP-recursion structure existed, and the examples would read as if the adverbials were simply adjoined (illicitly) to the s-selected CPi: in such cases the judgements of native speakers follow exactly the predictions made by the Adjunction Prohibition. We might wonder why it is that in sentences like (28) the strings of adverbials are not all adjoined to CP 2 , rather than the final one being interpreted as a cleft XP. A plausible answer is that mai selects a + wh- CP and so requires that some phrases undergo w/^-movement into the Specifier of its complement. This forces a cleft interpretation for the final adverbial. Where there is only one adverbial, such as in (29), it is possible to omit the clefting complementizer mai, and still interpret the adverbial as being a cleft constituent; compare (10). (29)

Mae hi'n siwr (mai) heddiw y bydd y plant is she-PRED sure COMP today COMP be.FUT.3sG the children yn swnllyd. PRED noisy

'She's sure that it's today that the children will be noisy.' None the less the structure of (29) must still employ CP-recursion, even if mai is not overtly present in the higher C° position, since there would otherwise be no explanation for the badness of the examples in (28) without the mai. It appears that one adverbial can be interpreted as a cleft XP, even without this being signalled by mai, but any additional adverbials must be identified, by the presence of mai, as being recursively adjoined to a non-s-selected CP.

114

Maggie Tallerman

Note that we now also have an answer to the question raised in section 3.1 as to whether the cleft XP might be adjoined to the lower CP rather than in its specifier position. If the cleft constituent was indeed in an adjoined position, there would be no way to distinguish between (26) and (27), since both would simply involve a string of adjoined constituents. In the current account of (26), however, one XP is legitimately in [Spec, CP2] and any other constituents must be adjoined adverbials. Since (27) cannot have that structure, it is correctly predicted to be ungrammatical. I therefore conclude that a clef ted XP is moved into [Spec, CP2] by w/z-movement, and that this is the only position targeted as a landing-site. The analysis given in this section of strings of adverbials in cleft constructions makes an obvious prediction, to which I now turn. If all adverbials (except clefted adverbials) are in a position adjoined to CP 2 , and the cleft constituent is in [Spec, CP2], then the adverbials ought to precede the cleft XP consistently. Such is indeed the case, in both matrix (30a) and embedded cleft clauses (30b): (30)

a. ??Y myfyrwyr ddoe oedd yr is-ganghellor yn eu cyfarch. the students yesterday was.3sG the vice-chancellor PROG 3PL greet '??It was the students yesterday that the vice-chancellor was greeting.' b. ??Dywedodd hi mai'r plant yn ffodus y said.3sG she coMP-the children PRED fortunate COMP bydd yn gweithio'n galed. be.FUT.3sG PROG work-PRED hard '??She said that it was the children fortunately that will be working hard.'

Finally in this section I return briefly to the analysis of clefted XPs in Rouveret (1991). Recall that Rouveret's observations concerning the position of the complementizer mai with respect to a cleft NP lead him to conclude (1991: 372) that the cleft NP cannot be in [Spec, CP]. Rouveret proposes that the IP-internal position [Spec, AgrP] is the landing-site for [ + N] categories only, whilst other cleft phrases are moved to [Spec, CP] as in the present account. The motivation for this distinction is the appearance of a cleft PP before the complementizer y, as in (31): (31)

[ppYn yr ardd] y mae Hefin. in the garden COMP is Hefin I t ' s in the garden that Hefin is.' (Rouveret 1991: 374, fn. 37)

Certainly, the presence of the PP before the complementizer seems to be good evidence that the cleft phrase is indeed in [Spec, CP], as I have also proposed here. However, Rouveret's 1991 account cannot handle the fact that a cleft PP in an embedded clause also follows the clefting complementizer mai, just as cleft APs and NPs do:

Fronting constructions (32)

115

Mi wn i m a i [ P P y n y r ardd] y mae Hefin. PRTknow.lsG I COMP in the garden COMP is Hefin 'I know that it's in the garden that Hefin is.'

In an analysis which does not employ CP-recursion there is no readily apparent way of accounting for the data in (32): Rouveret himself recognizes both mai and y as complementizers, in his 1991 account, but as he proposes only one C° position, there is no position available for mai. Embedded VP clefts are analogous to clefted PPs, with mai preceding the clefted constituent, and a complementizer, a, following it. We can therefore conclude that the CP-recursion analysis adopted both in the present account and by Rouveret in this volume makes the correct predictions for all types of clefted XP. In the next section I turn to agreement patterns in the two constructions under discussion.

4.2 Agreement patterns in the cleft and abnormal sentences Recall from the data in (1) and (2) that the two constructions have a different agreement pattern when subjects are fronted: the cleft type displays no subject agreement on the verb; on the other hand, the abnormal construction of Middle Welsh had full verbal agreement with the fronted subject:12 both number and person agreement. Since (2) is an artificial example just intended to illustrate the distinction between the two construction types, I repeat here as (33) example (4), and cite a further attested abnormal sentence for completeness: (33)

A'i ddisgyblion a ddaethant ato . . . and-3sG.M disciples COMP came.3PL to.3sG.M 'And his disciples came to him

(34)

Ni a

(Matthew viii, 25) yfwn.

we COMP drink. 1 PL

'We will drink.' (Chwedlau Odo,13 18, 19-20) Example (33) displays number agreement between a plural subject NP and the verb, and (34) displays person agreement: the fronted constituent is a first-person plural pronoun, and the verb has the first-person inflection. Note that in Modern Welsh there is no number agreement between a full lexical subject NP and the verb: the verb is singular even when the subject is plural: (35)

Gwerthodd y dynion y ci. sold.3sG the men the dog 'The men sold the dog.'

116

Maggie Tallerman

Such was also the case in Middle Welsh, at least in the majority of instances. For example: (36)

Yna y doeth y kennadau. then COMP came.3sG the messengers Then the messengers came.' (Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi,14 79, 27)

Evans (1989: 179) does mention that the verb is 'occasionally' plural before a plural lexical NP, but this is clearly not the norm in Middle Welsh. We can therefore reject at once the possibility that the verb in the abnormal sentence might agree with the subject NP because that was the usual agreement pattern: it was not. In all periods of the language, however, a verb has agreed in full with a pronominal NP subject, as this Modern Welsh example shows: (37)

Gwerthasant /?ro/nhw'r ci. sold.3PL they-the dog They sold the dog.'

As (37) shows, the verb is plural when the subject is either an overt or an empty pronominal. Parallel facts hold of course for person agreement. We can now give a straightforward account of the verbal agreement in the abnormal sentences in (33) and (34): the subject of the clause is the null pronominal pro, and the verb agrees with that NP. The appearance of full verbal agreement is good evidence that no w/z-movement is involved in the derivation of a subject fronted under the abnormal construction, since variables, like the full lexical NPs for which they are place-holders, are not associated with full agreement in Welsh: (38)

[Pa ddynion]/ a werthodd t, y ci? which men COMP sold.3sG the dog 'Which men sold the dog?'

Here the verb is in the third-person singular form although the w/z-phrase is plural. Since full agreement occurs standardly in the abnormal constructions, they are unlikely to involve w/z-movement. We have proposed that the cleft construction, on the other hand, is formed by w/z-movement; see (22), for example. Since, as we saw in (12), relative clauses are exactly parallel to clefts, and display the same lack of agreement with a moved subject, it is hardly surprising to find a further w/z-movement construction having the same properties. Given that the empty NP in the canonical subject position is a w/z-trace, the present analysis correctly predicts the lack of agreement when subjects are clefted. In this respect the current account appears to make more accurate predictions than that of Rouveret (1991). Recall that in Rouverefs

Fronting constructions

117

account of cleft sentences, the cleft NP is not in [Spec, CP] but rather in an A'-position internal to IP ([Spec, AgrP] to be precise). There is no w/j-movement in the derivation of the clefts, and Rouveret suggests that the verb agrees with what he terms the 'silent pronoun' (1991: fn. 33) (and elsewhere the 'null pronominal' (1991: fn. 41)) in the subject A-position. This can only be pro. But this cannot be the right answer, since as we have seen in (37) there is full agreement with pro, yet there is no number agreement in cleft constructions. I take this to be evidence for the correctness of the analysis of clefts presented here, and continue to maintain that the cleft sentence is formed via ^-movement. This conclusion is exactly parallel to that drawn by Borsley and Stephens (1989: 424 ff.) concerning the parallel SVO 'topicalization' structures in Breton, where the agreement patterns are the same as in the Welsh cleft construction. I turn next to the status of the complementizer mai and the other particles which can, or could, introduce a cleft construction.

4.3 The copula or complementizer in the cleft construction As we have seen in section 1, the matrix cleft construction, unlike the embedded clefts, does not have a particle introducing the cleft constituent. None the less, as we saw in section 4.1, the same restrictions on the order of adverbials and clefted XP obtain in matrix clauses; it seems likely, then, that the matrix cleft construction also employs CP-recursion, and has the cleft constituent in [Spec, CP] as proposed in section 3.1. Additional evidence for this comes from the occurrence of an overt clause-introducing particle in certain circumstances. The first is the negative cleft construction, illustrated in (6a): this is investigated fully in section 4.4. Secondly, in interrogative cleft clauses in the literary language the cleft is introduced by the item ai:ls (39)

Ai

ceffyl a

werthodd hi?

COMP horse COMP sold.3sG

she

'Is it a horse that she sold?' Lewis and Pedersen (1989: 320) show that ai is etymologically the interrogative particle a plus a form of the copula. Cliticization and grammaticalization appear to have occurred: where once the particle a would have been in the C° position, and the copula in a lower position, they subsequently formed a morphologically simple item in the C° position.16 As pointed out in section 1, both mai and the dialectal variant taw are etymologically copulas; compare the related (and homophonous) mae, the thirdperson singular present tense of 'be'. In earlier periods of the language, both mai and taw were also able to be used in conjunction with a distinct complementizer particle, y, as the Middle Welsh example (40) shows:

118

Maggie Tallerman

(40)

Mi a gredwn . . . y taw ti oed Bown. me PRTbelieve.coND.lsGCOMPTAw you were Bown 'I would believe . . . that thou wert Bown.' {Ystory a Bown de Hamtwn,11 24. 1541-2)

In earlier periods of Middle Welsh the copulas in cleft constructions even agreed with the main verb in tense, but this agreeing copula was eventually replaced by the single form ys in main clauses (shown in (11)) and then lost from the root position altogether. I have outlined the situation in the current period and earlier periods in some detail in order to illustrate the development of what is clearly a complementizer in the modern language. I suggest that the copula was once a finite verb which moved productively to C°, where it sometimes fused morphologically with the complementizer in that position (as in the case of ai). Over time, the system of copula tense agreement with the main verb broke down, and the copula became the complementizer: the modern equivalent of (40) is now ungrammatical. Grammaticalization of mai and the other complementizers legitimizes the CPrecursion which we proposed for the structure of the clefts: if mai were still a lexical verb, it would not permit adverbials to adjoin to its complement CP, since this would lead to a violation of the Adjunction Prohibition in (24). This lends support to the theory that mai has indeed undergone grammaticalization and (permanent) movement to C°. Since an overt complementizer such as mai signals the CP-recursion structure, it is unsurprising to find that it is usually retained in embedded clause clefts, whereas there is typically no overt complementizer in (Modern Welsh) matrix clause clefts. Adverbial adjunction to a matrix clause will not violate the Adjunction Prohibition, but of course adjunction to an embedded clause will do so unless it is adjunction to a CP which is not lexically selected, as in the case of CP complements to mai. An overt CP-selecting complementizer therefore has a clear role to play in embedded clauses which it does not in main clauses. None the less, we do of course assume that cleft constructions in Welsh always involve CP-recursion, even if the CP-selecting complementizer itself is phonetically null. We turn in the next section to the final set of facts which differentiate the cleft and abnormal constructions: the negatives.

4.4 Negation in fronting constructions In any discussion of negation in fronting constructions there are two main facts to be accounted for: firstly, why do cleft negations always have the fronted constituent itself negated, whilst abnormal sentences never do, relying solely on negation of the rest of the clause? Secondly, when cleft sentences display clausal

Fronting constructions

119

negation (as well as negation of the fronted XP) why do they have a different negative complementizer than the abnormal construction? I turn first to a brief outline of the data. Recall from section 1 that abnormal sentences, when negated, always involve clausal negation: the fronted constituent itself is not negated. On the other hand the cleft type of fronting always involves negation of the fronted XP, although, as we will see, there may be clausal negation as well. I repeat (6b,a), the examples which illustrated these facts, as (41) and (42):18 (41)

Y dyn ny

daeth.

(abnormal)

the man NEG-COMP came.3sG

T h e man did not come.' (Evans 1989: 180) (42)

Nid/dim y

dyn a

ddaeth.

(cleft)

NEG-COMP the man COMP came.3sG

'It wasn't the man who came.' In the analysis presented here, these negation facts are entirely predictable, since they hinge on the presence or absence of a complementizer position before the fronted constituent. The analysis of the abnormal construction in section 3.2 proposes adjunction of XP to matrix CPs. There is no complementizer position before the 'abnormally' fronted XP: hence no negative (or any other) complementizer can appear in initial position in examples like (41). In clefts, on the other hand, our analysis proposes a clefting complementizer in all cases, and the whfronting of XP to the specifier position of that complementizer's CP complement. It is therefore not surprising to find overt negative complementizers in initial position as shown in (42). Clearly, unlike in the case of affirmative or interrogative clefts, the negative complementizer needs to be overt in all clauses, since there will otherwise be no sign of negation. Hence the overt appearance of nid, dim in (42). In embedded clefts, we usually find the negative complementizer nad:19 (43)

Mi wn

i [nad

y

dyn a

ddaeth]

PRTknow.lsG I NEG-COMP the man COMP came.3sG

'I know that it was not the man who came.' In (42) and (43) only the cleft XP is negated, but it is also possible to have clausal negation as well: a negative complementizer can occur in the lower C° position in a structure such as (22), giving examples like (44) with the structure in (45):20 (44)

Nid

y

dyn na

ddaeth

(ddim).

NEG-COMP the man NEG-COMP came.3sG NEG

'It was not the man who didn't come.' (Watkins 1991: 332)

120

Maggie Tallerman

(45)

ddaeth

ddim

Example (45) is exactly parallel to the structure for affirmative clefts proposed in section 3.1. The analysis presented here captures straightforwardly an otherwise puzzling distinction between the abnormal and cleft clauses in the negative. Compare (41) and (44). In both cases we have a negated clause: . . . ny doeth (Modern Welsh ni ddaeth) in the abnormal sentence (41), but . . . na ddaeth in the cleft construction (44). Why should there be this distinction between the negative complementizers? The solution is straightforward: the contrast is between negation of matrix clauses versus negation of embedded clauses: ni is the main-clause negator and na the embedded clause negator. I illustrate with unmarked VSO word order.21 (46)

a. Ni welais i'r dyn. NEG-COMP saw.lsG I-the man 'I didn't see the man.' b. Mi wn i [na welaist ti'r dyn] PRTknow.lsG I NEG-COMP saw.2SG you-the man fc I know you didn't see the man.'

With these general facts about Welsh negation established, we can see what predictions are made about negative clauses by the analysis in section 3. Abnormal sentences are always root clauses, and involve adjunction to the matrix CP (see (25)). There is only one complementizer and it must be a matrix complementizer: hence the appearance of ni/ny in (41). Clefts, on the other hand, always involve CP-recursion, so the complementizer which negates the clause itself, C 2 in (45), is perforce the complementizer found in embedded clauses. The analysis presented here captures the fact that the clause which the cleft XP moves

Fronting constructions

121

out of is actually a type of embedded clause. Not surprisingly, it has the embedded negative complementizer na. Admittedly, a CP which is a complement not to a verb or other lexical head in a finite main clause, but merely to a higher complementizer, is not what first comes to mind when the term 'embedded clause' is used. But if we allow that term to include CP complements to C° - as the Welsh facts indicate we must - then a range of facts are elegantly accounted for. Note that again the same conclusions are not available in Rouveret's 1991 analysis of the cleft construction. In that account, the cleft XP is situated in a position within IP (the specifier position of the higher functional head projection, AgrP, in Rouveret's terms). If a negative clause follows it, as in (44), the presence of the embedded negative complementizer na is entirely unpredictable, since the cleft XP is not in a higher C-projection. I therefore conclude that both the agreement facts noted in section 4.2 and the negation facts of this section lead to a refutation of Rouveret's earlier (1991) hypothesis, in favour of the CP-recursion analysis presented here and by Rouveret in this volume. 4.5 Conclusion

We have seen throughout this section that an elegant account of the differing syntactic properties of the cleft and abnormal constructions can be provided, given the assumption of CP-recursion in the case of the cleft, and recursive adjunction to matrix CPs in the case of the abnormal sentence. Since there are two overt complementizers in cleft constructions, at least under certain circumstances, an analysis involving CP-recursion is an obvious one to adopt in order to account for the appearance of a cleft XP following, rather than preceding, the clefting complementizer. It is not clear how the adjunction to IP account of embedded topicalization would handle the same data, nor how any distinction could be made between the cleft and the abnormal constructions. Although the CP-recursion hypothesis was originally intended to account for the verb-second phenomena in Germanic languages, and other 'embedded matrix clause' phenomena (McCloskey 1992: 19) in a variety of languages, it can easily be extended to a wider variety of data, as we have seen here. The cases discussed by McCloskey involve bridge verbs allowing root phenomena to occur in an embedded context. Clefts in Welsh are not restricted to the complements of bridge verbs; CP-recursion has occurred instead as a result of the grammaticalization of the copula verb in cleft constructions, so that it is always sited in the C°-position, where it selects a CP complement.

122

Maggie Tallerman Notes

1 An earlier version of this chapter appears as Tallerman (1993b). Preliminary results were presented at the Conference on Comparative Celtic Syntax, University of Wales, Bangor, in June 1992, and at the second Plenary Conference of the European Science Foundation programme in Language Typology, EUROTYP, at Donostia/San Sebastian, 2-5 September 1992, in a paper entitled 'The "abnormal" and "cleft" word orders in Welsh'. Thanks are due to the European Science Foundation for the chance to pursue this research, and I am grateful to both the above audiences for useful suggestions. The present version has benefited from helpful discussion with the editors, Ian Roberts and Bob Borsley, and from the comments of an anonymous reviewer. In addition, especial thanks to Lewis Davies for his patient help as a consultant. Remaining errors are my own. 2 S. Williams, 1930. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. 3 B. Roberts, 1971. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. This example is cited in Fife and King (1991: 90). 4 J. G. Evans, 1907. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. This example is cited by Fife and King (1991: 84). 5 As Harlow (1981: 225) points out, there is no pied-piping in Welsh relative clauses, so only relativized NPs and not PPs have a parallel in the cleft construction. 6 The account of cleft sentences outlined by Rouveret (this volume) rectifies many of the problems of the earlier analysis in Rouveret (1991), and also includes a treatment of embedded clefts. 7 Both the examples in (16) will be grammatical if the adverbial is interpreted as belonging to the matrix clause, and the embedded clause complementizer y follows the adverbial: (i)

a. Dywedodd ef gydallaw, y bydd yn gadael. said.3sG he with hand COMP be.FUT.3sG PROG leave 'He said, by the way, that he will be leaving.' b. Mae hi'n siwr heddiw y bydd y plant yn swnllyd. is she-PRED sure COMP today be.FUT.3sG the children PRED noisy 'She's sure today that the children will be noisy.'

Unlike the constructions in Irish discussed by McCloskey (forthcoming), there is no evidence that examples such as (i) involve complementizer lowering in Welsh. Crucially, the adverbial cannot be interpreted as part of the embedded clause. It may, however, be contrastively clefted from the embedded clause, a construction we return to in section 4.1. 8 Rouveret's 1991 discussion concentrates on the analysis of the copula constructions shown in (i), which, he argues, involve a clefted NP in (a) and a fronted predicate NP in (b). I will leave aside such data here (but see Rouveret, this volume): (i)

a. Arthur yw'r brenin. Arthur is-the king 'Arthur is the king.'

Fronting constructions

123

b. Y brenin yw Arthur, the king is Arthur T h e king is Arthur.' (Rouveret 1991: 372) 9 Amongst the ordinary negative complementizers, ni, na are usually used preconsonantally, and nid, nad prevocalically. The cleft negative complementizers are nid, nad in all environments. Example (i) illustrates ordinary clausal negation, and (ii) negation in clefts, with a focalized PP: (i)

(ii)

a. Nid edrychaist amy llyfr. NEG looked.2SG for the book 'You didn't look for the book.' b. Gwn nad edrychaist amy llyfr. know. ISG NEG looked.2SG for the book 'I know that you didn't look for the book.' a. Nid am y llyfr yr edrychaist. NEG for the book COMP looked.2sG 'You didn't look for the book' b. Gwn nad am y llyfr yr edrychaist. know.lsG NEG for the book COMP looked.2sG 'I know that you didn't look for the book.'

10 For some discussion of these issues see Hendrick (1991), Rouveret (1991) and Tallerman (1993a). 11 'Base-generated' may perhaps be a shorthand for 'not moved by w/z-movement': see McCloskey (1992: 12ff.) for some discussion of the possibility that there are no basegenerated adjunctions. The only crucial feature of the present discussion is that the adjoined adverbials do not target [Spec, CP] as their landing-site. 12 See Evans (1989: 180): there are cases which are usually taken to be abnormal constructions but which have no agreement. A well-known example is shown in (i): (i)

Gwyr a aeth Gatraeth gan wawr. men COMP went.SG Catraeth by dawn 'The men went to Catraeth at dawn.' (Canu Aneirin 4.84. I. Williams, 1938. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru)

Ian Roberts (p.c.) suggests that such examples might be unintroduced clefts; this seems unlikely, though, as the pragmatic effects (i.e. focus) associated with clefts are absent. I leave aside such data as (i) in what follows. 13 Example (34) is from I. Williams, 1958. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. 14 I. Williams, 1930. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. 15 The colloquial language simply has a non-overt complementizer, and intonation alone signals the interrogative: (i)

Ceffyl a werthodd hi? horse COMP sold.3sG she 'Is it a horse that she sold?'

124

Maggie Tallerman

16 Negative interrogative clefts in Literary Welsh are introduced by a complementizer onid, a variant of the set of negative complementizers discussed in the following section. 17 Morgan Watkin, 1958. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. 18 In (42), nid is more likely to be found in Literary Welsh, whilst dim is exclusively Colloquial Welsh. 19 Although in some dialects we find mai with a co-occurring negator, giving mai dim. 20 Literary Welsh typically has the na/d complementizer without the medial negator ddim, whereas Colloquial Welsh typically just retains the mutation properties of the complementizer, or has cliticized *d, and has an overt medial negator. 21 In Colloquial Welsh the negative complementizers are usually visible mainly by their mutation effects; the chief mark of negation is the medial negative ddim following the verb. For example: (i)

a. Welais i ddim o'r dyn. NEG.saw.lsG I NEG of-the man 'I didn't see the man.' b. Mi wn i [welaist ti ddim o'r dyn] PRT know.lsG I NEG.saw.2sG you NEG of-the man 'I know you didn't see the man.'

The same analysis obtains as for Literary Welsh: the superficial differences relate to which negators are phonetically overt and which are not.

4

Bod in the present tense and in other tenses

Alain Rouveret

1 Be and bod

When it is followed by an adjective or by an indefinite or bare noun phrase, English be confers a predicational interpretation on this term: the object designated by the grammatical subject is subsumed under the property or the concept denoted by the predicate.1 Definite noun phrases can also be used predicationally (non-referentially), as (lb) shows: (1)

a. Stanley is smart / a doctor. b. Horatio is Hamlet's best friend.

It is well known, however, that the postverbal element in ^-sentences cannot be uniformly characterized as a predicate. First, the realization site of the referential subject and of the term functioning as the predicate may be reversed when the latter is a definite noun phrase. Examples (2a) and (2b) illustrate what Higgins (1973) calls the specificational type: (2)

a. Hamlet's best friend is Horatio. b. What I don't like about John is his tie.

Second, identificational statements involving deixis such as (3) and equative sentences like (4) are not interpreted predicationally, but as identity sentences, asserting that two objects that are denotationally distinct within the structural description of the sentence correspond to the same entity in the real world: (3) (4)

That man over there is Alfredo Funoll. The Morning Star is the Evening Star.

In the philosophical tradition inherited from Frege, predication and identity are posited as irreducibly distinct notions; identificational/equative sentences are analysed as structures with two arguments. Recent syntactic research, however, has essentially confirmed the semantic insight expressed by Jespersen (1924: 153-4) that 'the linguistic "copula" does not mean or imply identity, but subsumption in the sense of the old Aristotelian logic.'2 Ruwet (1982) establishes that linear order is not the only characteristic distinguishing predicative and specificational sentences. The predicational predicate in (1) may be pronomina125

126

Alain Rouveret

lized, relativized, topicalized, while the second term in a specificational construction may not be. The former has a syntactic behaviour analogous to that of the direct complement of a transitive verb; the latter behaves in some respects like a preverbal subject. Longobardi (1983) reaches the conclusion that the Logical Form of copular sentences never contains two real thematic arguments, but always a non-referential expression functioning as a predicate with respect to a syntactic subject. He shows that specificational sentences should be analysed as inverse predicational sentences. Combining this proposal with the view that be is a lexically unaccusative verb selecting a small clause, hence external to the predicative connection itself, Moro (1988, 1991) suggests that the defining property of copular constructions is that be not only allows for the raising of the subject to SpecIP, as ordinary raising verbs do, but also for the fronting of the predicate, if it is nominal. In the first case, a canonical predicational construction is derived; in the second, an inverse predicational construction, that is, a specificational sentence.3 Note that, if we follow Jespersen's insight, we must assume that identity sentences are also semantically asymmetric and admit a parallel derivation.4 This chapter argues for a unitary characterization of the verb bod in Welsh. Just as there is only one be, there is only one bod, occurring in predicational, specificational, identiflcational and equative constructions. The diverging semantic interpretations of the relevant constructions can be shown to follow from the properties of the terms linked by bod and from the semantics of the predicates involved: they need not and should not be encoded in the meaning of bod itself. One feature, however, distinguishes my analysis of copular sentences from the standard one: extending to Welsh a proposal made by Travis (1992) for English be, I will assume that bod is not specified in the lexicon for the selection of a small clause, but is inserted into the lower V-position of a Larsonian VP-structure, a position from which it governs the predicate, not the subject. This decision will be motivated in section 2.3. The claim that there is only one verb bod at first may appear controversial. The reason is that bod has several forms in the third person of the present indicative. An accepted practice in Welsh linguistics is to distinguish between an existential meaning and a copular meaning of bod. In this view, the morphological diversification of the forms of bod marks a semantic distinction, corresponding to the existential/copula divide (see (5)/(6)). Closer examination, however, reveals that the picture is more complex. The existential form mae also appears in positive predicational sentences (see (7)). The so-called copula, yw, is the form used in negative and interrogative predicational sentences (see (8)), as well as in constructions in which an adjectival or indefinite nominal predicate occupies the clause-initial position (see (9)).

Bod (5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

127

Mae bleiddiau yn Rwsia. is wolves in Russia There are wolves in Russia.' Y brenin yw Arthur, the king is Arthur 'Arthur is the king.' Y mae yn ysgrifennwr rhagorol. PRT is PRED writer excellent 4 He is an excellent writer.' A ydyw Mair yn athrawes dda? Q is Mair PRED teacher good 'Is Mair a good teacher?' Ysgrifennwr rhagorol yw ef. writer excellent is he 'He is an excellent writer.'

I intend to argue that this morphological complexity, far from calling the unity of the verb bod into question, can be traced back to the interaction of three independent factors: the different lexical representations associated with stagelevel and individual-level predicates; the syntactic behaviour of bod, distinct from that of ordinary verbal predicates; how the temporal reference of sentences in the morphologically simple present tense is determined in Welsh. The following claims will be presented and justified: (10) (11) (12) (13)

The argument structure of stage-level predicates includes an abstract spatio-temporal argument, that of individual-level predicates does not. 5 Bod is the only verb in Welsh which can incorporate a locative clitic. Bod is the only verb in Welsh which can raise to C in overt syntax, both in root and embedded clauses. The morphological simple present tense in Welsh cannot function as a Tense operator at LF.

I intend to show that the form mae exclusively appears in sentences in the simple present tense containing a stage-level predicate and is required only if no operator able to bind the spatio-temporal argument of the predicate is made available by the context. This situation presents itself in affirmative predicational sentences. The form yw is legitimate when there is no spatio-temporal argument to bind, that is, with individual-level predicates, and when an extra operator is available to license the spatio-temporal argument of stage-level predicates, namely in interrogative and negative predicational sentences. No alternation between the forms of bod is observable in the past, simply because the morphological past tense has quantificational force and is able to license the spatio-temporal argument of stage-level predicates. Independent principles ensure that the sentences which

128

Alain Rouveret

contain a definite nominal (individual-level) predicate are necessarily realized as verb-second structures. If this analysis is correct, the following picture emerges: there is only one verb bod selecting a complement able to function as a predicate; the morphological alternation and the semantic divide between existential bod and copular bod have a strictly syntactic and logical basis.6

2 Predication and existence: the form mae 2.1 Predicational mae and existential mae The aim of this section is to characterize the basic syntax and semantics of mae. Two uses of this form must be distinguished. 2.1.1 Predicational mae Mae is the form used in ordinary predicational sentences which assert the existence of a relation between an object and a property or concept. (14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

a. Mae'r ci mawr yn yr ardd. is-the dog big in the garden T h e big dog is in the garden.' b. Mae ci mawr yn yr ardd. is dog big in the garden 'A big dog is in the garden.' a. Y mae'r ffermwr wedi cau y glwyd PRT is-the farmer PERF shut the gate T h e farmer has shut the gate.' b. Mae dyn yn siarad efo Mair. is man PROG speak to Mair 'A man is speaking to Mair.' a. Mae Sion yn ddedwydd. is Sion PRED happy 'Sion is happy.' b. Mae rhywun yn glaf. is someone PRED sick 'Someone is sick.' Y mae Sion yn feddyg. PRT is Sion PRED doctor 'Sion is a doctor.'

(PP)

(AspP)

(yn + k¥)

(yn + bare NP)

Although the identity of the lexical projection functioning as a predicate varies, these constructions share one characteristic: the relation between the nominal

Bod

129

argument and its predicate is mediated by an explicit marker. The predicate is a locative PP in (14), a verb-noun phrase ( = VNP) preceded by an aspect marker in (15), an adjective phrase or a bare noun phrase preceded by the predicative marker yn in (16) and (17). A second property shared by all raae-constructions is that the verb may be preceded by the affirmative particle y (see (15a), (17)).7 I will assume that, like other sentence particles, the affirmative particle is realized in C and is not an affixal element requiring a morphological support. This characterization, if correct, implies that mae is not itself realized in C, but in the higher inflectional head, Agrs. Finally, the nominal argument can be either definite or indefinite (see (14a/b)). This property crucially distinguishes predicational mae from existential mae.

2.1.2 Existential mae The following sentences in which the nominal argument is indefinite illustrate the existential use of mae: (18)

(19)

a. Mae ci mawr yn yr ardd. is dog big in the garden 'There is a big dog in the garden.' b. Mae yna gi mawr yn yr ardd. is there dog big in the garden 'There is a big dog in the garden.' a. Mae bleiddiau yn Rwsia. is wolves in Russia 'There are wolves in Russia.' b. Mae yna fleiddiau yn Rwsia. is there wolves in Russia 'There are wolves in Russia.' c. Mae bleiddiau. is wolves 'There are wolves.' d. Mae yna fleiddiau. is there wolves 'There are wolves.'

These examples are not semantically homogeneous. Example (18a) can be interpreted in one of three ways. We know that it can have a simple predicational reading (see (14b)). In this case, the indefinite argument receives a specific interpretation. It can also specify the value of a variable, the range of which has been previously defined: the sentence asserts that a big dog belongs to the class of x's

130

Alain Rouveret

which are in the garden. In this case, the interpretation is specificational. Lastly, it can signal that there is a big dog in the garden and denote the pure emergence of a phenomenon. In this case, the interpretation is presentational. The most natural translation of these presentational/specificational sentences makes use of the locative-existential expression there is in English or // y a in French. In Welsh, the deictic locative adverbial yna can also be added to the constructions containing a locative PP. If it is, it forces the presentational/specificational reading, provided that the nominal argument is indefinite (see (18b)). Examples (19) differ from (18) in that the nominal argument is a bare plural NP. As Jones and Thomas (1977: 51-2) observe, (19a) and (19b) assert 'the existence of a particular object as opposed to its location, even though its existence occurs at a particular place and in a particular time.' This interpretation of the data is confirmed by the fact that these existential sentences are also well formed in the absence of a locative PP, as (19c) and (19d) show. These examples illustrate the absolute use of bod: they are ontological assertions, stating the existence of entities, usually designated under the name of wolves. The presence of yna, although not obligatory, greatly improves the acceptability of these sentences: (19a) and (19c) are felt as slightly marginal. They are more natural if, in addition to yna, a locative PP is present, anchoring them more firmly: (19b) is preferred to (19d). All these sentences are instances of the existential use of mae. This value is not in doubt when bod is used absolutely. But it is also present when the predicate is a locative PP. The close connection between existential and locative sentences has often been emphasized: all existential sentences are, at least implicitly, locative sentences, provided that the term 'locative' is given a broad meaning encompassing both locative and temporal reference.8 Note that the verb bod can be assumed to have its full existential value also in the predicational construction which, as observed in section 2.1.1, can be analysed as a locative construction. The occurrence of existential mae is not restricted to sentences containing a locative PP. It can also be combined with an aspectual or adjectival predicate: (20)

a. Mae yna ddyn yn siarad efo is there man PROG speaking to 'There is a man speaking to Mair.' b. Mae yna rywun yn glaf yn is there someone PRED ill in 'There is someone ill in the house. c. *Mae yna rywun yn glaf.

Mair. Mair y ty the house

In these examples, mae cannot stand alone, but must be reinforced by yna: the deictic locative adverbial makes available the presentational interpretation which is otherwise excluded. In sentences containing an adjectival predicate, both yna

Bod

131

and a locative PP are necessary to give rise to a well-formed presentational sentence. Example (20c) is not acceptable. Paradigms (14)—(17), (18)—(19) and (20) show that the same form of bod is used in existential sentences and in canonical predicational sentences, a fact which suggests that these two constructions share at least one property. We know that they differ in that the nominal argument is necessarily indefinite in the former, while it may be either definite or indefinite in the latter. I intend to show that their common characteristic lies in the status of the predicate: it is semantically construed and syntactically marked as a stage-level predicate.

2.2 Stage-level predicates and the mat-construction As mentioned above, the relation between the nominal argument and its predicate in the ra^e-construction is mediated by an explicit marker which, in some cases, may be identified as a locative or temporal preposition. Let us try to be more precise about the syntactic status and the semantic import of these markers. Following a recent practice in Celtic linguistics, the various particles appearing in the aspectual periphrases (see (5), (7), (15)) have been analysed as instances of the functional category Aspect and the Asp + VNP sequences as AspP projections. This labelling is relatively neutral with respect to the different treatments of the construction proposed in the literature. Two types of approaches may be distinguished.9 Some authors view the aspectual periphrases as special predicative complexes in which the verb-noun is a non-finite verb, the verb bod an auxiliary and the particle an aspect marker. This line of thought is illustrated by Jones and Thomas (1977), Sproat (1985), Hendrick (1991), Borsley (1993). Another approach, starting with Anwyl (1899)and developed by Awbery (1976) and Fife (1990), assigns to the aspectual periphrasis the status of a normal predicative construction, in which bod is the verb of existence and the aspect marker a genuine preposition functioning as an aspect marker. This characterization relies on the observation that these markers are homophonous with locative or temporal prepositions: progressive yn with the preposition meaning 'in', perfective wedi with the preposition meaning 'after', ar with the preposition meaning 'on'. 10 The relevant elements clearly fulfil a specific function when they occur in the aspectual construction. The claim made by this analysis is simply that they do preserve a number of prepositional properties in their aspectual use. The status assigned to the verb-noun also differs in the two approaches: in the first one, it can only be identified as a non-finite verb; in the second one, a very different characterization is available: the VN, which can function as the object of a preposition-like element, is a nominal form of the verb. This analysis is in accordance with the morphological make-up of verb-nouns: most of them are derived through the adjunction of a nominalizing affix to the verb stem.

132

Alain Rouveret

Syntactically, VNP domains, which have the internal syntax and sometimes the external distribution of noun phrases, can plausibly be analysed as DPs having a null D head, more precisely as nominalizations of a particular kind: they are nominalized verbal structures embedded in a DP. 11 The functional structure associated with verbo-nominal DPs is the following: (21)

fop

D [NomP . . . Norn [Vp . . . V . . . ]]]

This analysis makes Celtic VNPs akin to Romance participial structures, which Kayne (1993) identifies as nominalizations contained in a DP. In this view, the Asp + VNP sequences are prepositional predicates of spatial and temporal location. Although much more justification needs to be presented in favour of this treatment and the detailed arguments produced by Sproat (1985) against the prepositional analysis of the aspectual markers and by Borsley (1993) against the view that VNPs have the internal syntax of NPs must still be refuted, I will assume that aspectual periphrases are normal predicative constructions, in which bod is the verb of existence, not an auxiliary.12 If this analysis is on the right track, the mae . . . yn . . . 'progressive' construction in Welsh can be viewed as structurally analogous to the following English sentences, cited by Smith (1991: 230): (22)

a. I am in the midst of writing a report, b. The murderer is in the act of escaping.

The two constructions are also semantically analogous. In order to determine whether the semantic interpretation of the ra#e-construction can be related to its syntactic make-up, it is necessary to digress a bit and clarify the distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates. Carlson (1977) shows that in English, two classes of predicates may be distinguished on both semantic and distributional grounds. A stage-level predicate has a transitory value and denotes some accidental temporally bound manifestation of the subject's being (e.g. being angry, laughing); an individuallevel predicate refers to a permanent characteristic which is an integral part of the subject's being or identity (e.g. being intelligent, knowing Welsh). It is thus natural to ask whether the forms mae and yw can be distinguished on the basis of the type of predicate they select. Dechaine (1993) observes that the stage-level/individual-level distinction cuts across lexical categories. Some categories are prototypically stage-level, others prototypically individual-level. Locative prepositional phrases are instances of the former type, (bare) nominals are instances of the latter. As for adjectives and verbs, they seem to divide equally into the two types. In the m#e-construction, locative PPs and bare NPs can function as predicates (see (14), (17)). Both stagelevel and individual-level adjective phrases are legitimate:

Bod (23)

133

a. Mae'r ffenestr yn agored. is-the window PRED open T h e window is open.' b. Mae'r mor yn las. is-the sea PRED blue T h e sea is blue.'

In English, stative verbs, which clearly belong to the individual-level type, cannot appear in the progressive construction. Examples (24) show that the corresponding periphrastic construction in Welsh is not restricted in this way: stative verbs can occur in the ZW-construction with the aspect marker yn in the present tense and in other tenses:13 (24)

a. Y mae yn pwyso pedwar pwys a hanner. PRT is PROG weigh four pound and half 'He/she/it weighs four pounds and a half.' b. Mae Mair yn adnabod Sion. is Mair PROG know Sion 'Mair knows Sion.' c. Yr oedd y wraig honno yn gwybod Saesneg a Chymraeg. PRT was the woman that PROG know English and Welsh This woman knew English and Welsh.'

These distributions could be taken to show that the stage-level/individual-level distinction plays no role in the choice of the form mae. However, this analysis would miss an important generalization: the relation between the subject and its adjectival, nominal or verbo-nominal predicate is systematically mediated by an explicit marker. I propose to view predicative yn, aspectual yn and wedi as elements exclusively introducing stage-level predicates. More precisely, the combination of the marker with the predicate gives rise to a stage-level predicate, exactly as the combination of a locative preposition with its object does. Indefinite nominals denoting individual-level properties can also be turned into stage-level predicates, as the well-formedness of (17) shows. Kratzer (1989) proposes to derive the difference between stage-level predicates and individual-level predicates from a difference in argument structure. Stagelevel predicates have an abstract 'Davidsonian' spatio-temporal external argument, whereas individual-level predicates lack it. Being null, this argument must be bound at LF by an element functioning as an operator. This idea can be implemented in one of two ways. Either the spatio-temporal argument is taken to be a characteristic of the argument structure of the lexical predicates AP, NP, VNP, PP themselves, or it is represented as a property of the element which introduces them. The Welsh data clearly favour the second option. I will take the argument structure of the locative preposition yn, which is typically stage-level,

134

Alain Rouveret

and that of aspectual yn and predicative yn, which are prepositional-like elements, to be endowed with a spatio-temporal argument.14 As stated above, this argument must be bound at LF by an element functioning as an operator. My proposal is to analyse mae as 'augmented' bod, that is, as the third person of bod in the present tense incorporating a locative adverbial clitic, which is the equivalent of Italian ci and of French y: (25)

mae

= [CL L O C -/W.PRES.3SG]

At LF, the incorporated adverbial clitic functions as an operator binding the spatio-temporal argument of the stage-level predicate.15

2.3 A preliminary analysis of mai-constructions The characterization of mae as 'augmented' bod immediately raises the following questions: what is the derivational history of this form? In what type of configuration is it inserted? What is the structural origin of the locative clitic it incorporates? The answer to these questions largely depends on the position one adopts concerning the interaction between morphology and syntax. Following Baker (1988), let us assume that morphologically complex words are built up in the syntactic component by the variant of the rule move-a applying to heads and manipulating basic elements such as roots, stems and affixes. In this view, the initial representation associated with raae-constructions must include a specific category harbouring the clitic. In order to implement this idea, I propose to abandon the small-clause analysis of be/bo ^-constructions and to extend to Welsh bod the Larsonian VP-structure which Travis (1992) associates with English be. The D-structure representation generated by this hypothesis is shown in (26): (26)

[VPl [ v CL Loc ] [Vp2 [spec NP ] [V' [v bod\ [XP]]]]

Bod is inserted into the head of the lower YP-shell, VP2; the locative clitic occupies the higher V position;16 the theme argument is generated as the external argument of VP 2 ; the predicate XP is the syntactic complement of bod. On its way to T and Agrs, bod moves through the higher V position and adjoins to CL Loc . Later incorporation of bod-CL to T and to Agrs gives rise to the form mae. In section 2.4, I show that the definiteness effect observable in existential constructions lends further support to analysis (26). 2.3.1 Focalization of aspectual predicates The properties of cleft-constructions in which the focused element is an aspectual predicate provide additional evidence in favour of the idea that bod is inserted into a Larsonian VP-structure and also in favour of the analysis of aspectual

Bod

135

predicates as prepositional phrases. Paradigm (27) shows that in Welsh, selected PPs and adjunct PPs have the same behaviour with respect to extraction. Both can be clefted.17 The fronted constituent is followed by the subordinating particle y and binds a trace in its original position.18 And it bears the contrastive/identifying interpretation associated with focused elements. (27)

a. I'r bachgen y rhoddodd y dyn lyfr. to-the boy COMP gave the man book 'It is to the boy that the man gave a book.' b. Yn y nos y mae'r dyn yn gweithio. in the night COMP is-the man PROG work T h e man works in the night.'

Interestingly, the aspectual predicates appearing in the predicative construction show a similar behaviour with respect to extraction. They can be clefted (as in (28a)) or extracted from a finite complement clause (as in ((28b)), but they cannot be extracted from an indirect question (see (28c)): (28)

a. Wedi cau y glwyd y mae'r ffermwr.19 PERF shut the gate COMP is-the farmer T h e farmer has shut the gate.' b. ?Wedi cau y glwyd y credwn y mae'r ffermwr PERF shut the gate COMP we-believe COMP is-the farmer c. *Wedi cau y glwyd tybed a yw'r ffermwr. PERF shut the gate (I) wonder whether is-the farmer

If AspPs are PPs, the grammaticality of (28a) follows from the same principles that account for the well-formedness of sentences (27). The marginal status of (28b) mirrors the marginal status of long-distance extraction of ordinary PPs. The ungrammaticality of (28c) can be traced back to the w/i-island condition. The fact that this process leaves the subject behind is also expected in the analysis schematized in (26), since the nominal argument is basically inserted into a position external to the Asp/PP projection.20 Suppose instead that the subject originates in the AspP complement of bod, more precisely in the specifier position of the VNP domain, complement of Asp. This alternative option is schematized in (29): (29)

[yp [y [v bod ] [ ASP P Spec Asp [ V N P N P S [VN' VN ( N P O ) ]]]]]

If (29) is adopted, the fact that predicate-clefting leaves the subject behind could be taken to indicate that, at the point in the derivation where this process occurs, the subject has been moved out of VNP and AspP. Schema (29) must be rejected, however, since the corresponding derivation contains a problematic step. It crucially supposes that no violation occurs when the subject argument of a verb-noun is extracted out of VNP across the Asp head. If Asp is a functional

136

Alain Rouveret

head, the VNP domain should be opaque, since Asp is not 'lexicalized' (the verbnoun does not move into it). If, as I propose, Asp is a preposition, extraction of the subject should trigger the realization of a resumptive pronoun or clitic in the position it governs, as is the case in Welsh whenever the moved element is the object of a preposition.21 The difficulty disappears if (26) is adopted. The subject should be able to move freely since it is head-governed by bod after the adjunction of the verb to [v CL]. 22

2.4 The distribution of definite and indefinite subjects The existential construction and the predicational construction differ in that the nominal argument is necessarily indefinite in the former, while it may be definite or indefinite in the latter. The aim of this section is to introduce additional data, which provide evidence in favour of the following generalizations: (30)

a. In the mtfe-construction, the subject may be realized in SpecTP or in a position internal to VP. b. Only indefinite subjects may be realized inside VP. c. Indefinite subjects inside VP yield the existential reading.

2.4.1 Mai-constructions In the mae-construction, the subject argument need not be adjacent to the inflected verb. It can follow a locative PP. But this option is available only with indefinite expressions. If the subject is a definite noun phrase, it obligatorily precedes the locative complement. (31)

a. Mae ci mawrynyr ardd. is dog big in the garden '