The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs*

Transcription

1 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs* Yoshio Nakamura 1. Introduction Chomsky (1995) suggests that adverbials can be base-adjoined only to X or to phrases headed by v or functional categories. However, the distribution of preverbal adverbials casts doubt on the assumption of adjunction to vp. Collins (1997) argues that adverbs may not be adjoined to vp (TrP in his terminology), giving the following paradigm of quotative inversion: (1) a. I am leaving, John shouted abruptly. b. shouted John abruptly. c.? abruptly shouted John. d. * shouted abruptly John. Under the analysis of Collins (1997), the relevant structure of (1d) is represented as follows: () [ Quote...]...[ TP [V-T][ TrP [ ADVP abruptly][ TrP John [ Tr Tr [ VP t V t quote ]]]]] To exclude (1d), Collins (1997) assumes that adverbs may not be adjoined to vp/trp. He further assumes that the adverb cannot occupy an outside specifier position of vp/trp because multiple specifiers of a head H are available only for XPs that have either a feature-checking relation or a θ-relation with H. The ungrammaticality of

2 Yoshio Nakamura (1d) follows from these two assumptions. As Collins himself notes, however, preverbal adverbs pose a question to his analysis. () John will quickly leave the room. For cases like (), Collins (1997) suggests two possibilities: (i) the adverb is adjoined to v /Tr or (ii) there exists another functional projection to which the adverb adjoins. These analyses are questionable, however. If either of these possibilities is correct, the preverbal position should be available for any kind of XP in principle. Contrary to the expectation, it is well known that even adverbial PPs cannot appear in the preverbal position in spite of their similar semantic roles: (4) a. Bill dropped the bananas quickly/with a crash. b. Bill quickly/*with a crash dropped the bananas. See Jackendoff (1977), for examples. It seems, then, that the preverbal position is available only for true adverbs. In this paper, I will argue that adjunction to vp or v is excluded by assuming the condition on phrase structure proposed by Takano (1996). Furthermore, I will propose that preverbal adverbs should be analyzed as being headadjoined to a verb under the substitution analysis of head-adjunction proposed by Fukui and Takano (1998). The organization of this paper is as follows. In section, I will examine Travis s (1988) intuitive idea that adverbs are heads. It will also be shown that v adjunction of adverbs as well as vp-adjunction is excluded by assuming the condition on phrase structure proposed by Takano (1996). In section, it is proposed, based on the arguments in section, that preverbal adverbs should be analyzed as being headadjoined to a verbal head in the sense of Fukui and Takano (1998). Section 4 discusses implications of the head-adjunction analysis of preverbal adverbs.

3 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs Section 5 summarizes the discussion.. Preverbal Adverbs as Heads Travis (1988) gives an account for the contrast in (4), assuming that true adverbs are not maximal projections, contrary to adverbial PPs. 1 To support the assumption that true adverbs are not maximal projections, Travis (1988) argues that adverbs are defective categories in that they cannot take a complement: (5) a. proud of their achievements b. * proudly of their achievements c. fearful of Bill d. * fearfully of Bill See also Jackendoff (1977). However, it has been observed in the literature that the view that adverbs cannot take a complement is dubious. For example, Manga (199) argues against Travis (1988) that adverbs occasionally project to a phrasal category. Let us consider the following examples: (6) a. Independently of Eastern philosophy Western philosophy developed. b. Western philosophy developed independently of Eastern philosophy. See also Alexiadou (1997) and references cited there. Manga (199) argues that such adverbial projections form a constituent. Consider the following examples: 4 (7) a. * Of Eastern philosophy, Western philosophy developed independently. b. * It is independently that Western philosophy developed of Eastern philosophy.

4 Yoshio Nakamura c.?* It is of Eastern philosophy that Western philosophy developed independently. These examples indicate that the adverbial elements form a constituent, defying the split. However, such adverbial projections cannot appear in the preverbal position without comma intonation: (8) Western philosophy independently (*of Eastern philosophy) developed. This confirms that the intuition of Travis (1988) still holds at least for adverbs that appear in the preverbal position. 5 At this point, we have two questions to consider: (i) why are preverbal XP adjuncts disallowed in examples like (8), and (ii) how are preverbal adverbs structurally related to the VP when they are in a VP-initial position. Question (ii) is considered in the next section. In the remainder of this section, let us consider question (i). The unavailability of a vp-adjoined position for the location of nonminimal X max elements follows from the principles that govern the computations in the phonological component advocated by Takano (1996). Takano (1996) proposes that an operation called Linearization applies to a syntactic object Σ in the phonological component, assigning Σ a linear order. Linearization consists of two basic operations: one is Demerge that breaks down a syntactic object into smaller pieces, and the other is Concatenate that puts the pieces into a linear sequence. See Takano (1996) for details. Suppose that Linearization applies to the ungrammatical case of (4b). At some stage in the phonological component, after the detachment of the subject Bill, Linearization applies to the following structure: (9) vp

5 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs PP vp # with a crash t SUBJ v $ dropped the bananas Takano (1996) and Fukui and Takano (1998) assume that only maximal projections are visible to Linearization. Suppose that Linearization applies to the structure in (9). Takano (1996) proposes that such a root adjunction structure is not asymmetric enough to linearize: 6 (10) A root adjunction structure can never be linearized. If this is the case, the structure (9) cannot be broken down into smaller pieces any further by Linearization. Since adverbial PPs do not enter into a feature checking relation or a θ-relation, they cannot be in the specifier position of v. As a result, it follows that adverbial PPs (actually, XPs that don t enter into a feature checking or θ- relation with v) never appear in the preverbal position. Furthermore, (10) excludes the possibility of adjunction to v. Consider the following structure, in which an element α is adjoined to v : 7 (11) K (= v ) α v V+v VP t V β Suppose that Linearization applies to K. Being an adjunct, α does not enter into a feature checking relation or θ-relation with v. In other words, α does not count as a specifier of v. Consequently, the structure in (11) is regarded as a form of root

6 Yoshio Nakamura adjunction. If this is correct, the structure in (11) cannot be linearized because of the condition stated in (10).. The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs In this section, let us turn to question (ii) stated in the previous section. How are preverbal adverbs structurally related to the VP when they are in a VP-initial position? Recall that the intuition of Travis (1988) is that such adverbs may not project to a phrasal category, or rather, they remain as heads. Following the intuition, I claim that preverbal adverbs are head-adjoined to the verb, and that such head-adjunction is possible under the minimalist assumptions, especially in line with Fukui and Takano (1998), who argue that a head-adjoined element counts as a specifier. 8 To put the conclusion first, such head-adjoined preverbal adverbs count as an extra specifier of vp, giving rise to the adverb-verb order. Let us begin with a brief review of relevant assumptions. How head movement should be treated has been an important issue in the minimalist approach. Consider first the following representation of a ditransitive structure assumed in Chomsky (1995): (1) vp Z v v VP X V V Y Note here that the tree diagram does not imply anything about the linear order of the elements in it. Fukui and Takano (1998) proposes that V-movement to v is not head movement of V as adjunction to a head v, but it is like substitution into Spec under

7 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs the bare phrase structure theory, resulting in the following structure: (1) vp Z v a-> V v 1 1 v VP 1 1 X V 1 1 t V Y z m In (1), the category V is merged with v. Under Chomsky s (1994, 1995) bare theory, the notions of minimal, maximal, and intermediate projections are taken to be derivationally and relationally defined. In (1), V is an X min in its original position and is both an X min and an X max in its landing site. The chain formed by the V-raising meets the weaker uniformity condition proposed by Fukui and Takano (1998) that requires chains to be nondistinct with regard to phrase structure status. 9 Both the head and the tail of the chain have the X min status. In this configuration, V is substituted into Spec, though substitution is no longer an appropriate term in the bare phrase structure theory. See Fukui and Takano (1998) for conceptual and empirical grounds for the substitution analysis of head movement. Under Fukui and Takano s (1998) system, a PF operation called Linearization reads (1) off, giving rise to the head initial order. That is, when V raises out of the VP it heads, V precedes all the VP-internal elements (X and Y in (1)) in the surface order. At this point, preverbal adverbs can find their positions in the theory of phrase structure. My proposal is that such vp-initial adverbs are in a head-adjunction configuration to the verbal head in the sense of Fukui and Takano (1998). Before

8 Yoshio Nakamura examining preverbal adverbs, let us start with cases such as (4a), repeated below: (14) Bill dropped the bananas quickly/with a crash. The consideration we have made so far is in accordance with the suggestion of Chomsky (1995) that sentence-final adjuncts are in a complement position. Assuming Larsonian VP-shell structure, (14) would be assigned the following structure. (15) a. [ vp t SUBJ [ v dropped+v [ VP [ DP the bananas][ V t V [ ADV quickly]]]]] b. [ vp t SUBJ [ v dropped+v [ VP [ DP the bananas][ V t V [ PP with a crash]]]]] See also McConnell-Ginet (198), Stroik (1990), and Alexiadou (1997), among others. I assume here with Alexiadou (1997) that such adjuncts are combined with V before its arguments are attached. After the merger of V and ADV/PP, the DP object is merged with the verbal projection. The resulting VP is then merged with v, to which V is attracted. In PF, the structure in (15a) and (15b) are read off by Linearization, giving rise to the V-DP obj -ADV/PP order. Let us now turn to the cases where an adverb appear in the preverbal position: (16) Bill quickly dropped the bananas. Let us suppose, in line with Travis (1988), that preverbal adverbs are in a head-to-head relationship with their licensing verbs. Recall that the head-to-head relation between v and V is established by the amalgamation of these two heads. Let us suppose that the head-to-head relation between adverbs and their licensing verbs can be mediated by the merger of them, on the analogy of V-v amalgamation. 10 Specifically, I assume, reorienting the intuition of Travis (1988), that VP adverbs can be optionally assigned a

9 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs feature which agrees with a verbal head, that is, the V-v complex. Assuming Fukui and Takano s (1998) substitution analysis of head-adjunction, I propose the following structure for the head-adjunction of an adverb to the verbal head in (16): (17) TP Bill T T vp t Bill v quickly min/max v dropped v v V max DP V t dropped t quickly In (17), V has been head-adjoined to v, in the sense of Fukui and Takano (1998). The position of V counts as a specifier position of v. The adverb quickly with a feature that agrees with the verbal head has also been moved. Being X min, the adverb and V constitute a form of head-adjunction structure under Fukui and Takano s (1998) system. In addition, under Fukui and Takano s (1998) hypothesis, the headadjoined adverb counts as a specifier of the verbal projection, so that the structure is asymmetric enough to give rise to adverb-verb order. 4. Some Implications In the remainder of this paper, let us see some implications of the headadjunction analysis of preverbal adverbs proposed in this paper. Let us first

10 Yoshio Nakamura consider the following examples of VP ellipsis that Potsdam (1997) observes: (18) a. Helga easily won her race and Sophie will φ too. (φ = easily win her race, *win her race) b. Johnny blatantly disobeys the baby sitter because his sister does φ. (φ = blatantly disobeys the baby sitter, *disobeys the baby sitter) c. Daisy thoroughly cleaned the pans since the automatic dishwasher couldn t φ. (φ = thoroughly clean the pans, *clean the pans) The antecedent of a null VP (vp under the minimalist terminology) contains an adverb that modifies VP/vP. The fact that the interpretation of the elided verbal projection must contain the adverb follows from the analysis of this paper. Since the preverbal adverb is head-adjoined to the verb that heads the VP/vP, the right conjunct of (18a), for example, is assigned the following representation: (19) TP Sophie T T vp

11 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs t Sophie v easily v won v v VP DP her race t won t easily If VP-deletion applies to vp in (19), it follows straightforwardly that the operation must elide the adverb along with other vp-internal elements including the preverbal adverb head-adjoined to the verbal head. 11,1 Let us turn to the next issue. So far, I have tacitly assumed that V-raising precedes the head-adjunction of adverbs to preverbal positions. 1 Let us now consider the behavior of French infinitival verbs. Pollock (1989) observes that French infinitival verbs can appear either in the adverb-v-dp obj or the V-adverb-DP obj order: (0) a. A peine parler l italien après cinq ans d étude dénote un manque de to hardly speak Italian after five years of study denotes a lack of don pour les langues. gift for languages To hardly speak Italian after five years of hard work means you lack a gift for languages. b. Parler à peine l italien après cinq ans d étude dénote un manque de don pour les langues. To speak hardly Italian after five years of hard work means you lack a

12 gift for languages. Yoshio Nakamura Fukui and Takano (1998) argue that Pollock s observation can be attributed to the different properties of v in English and French. Consider the following structure: (1) T T vp t subj v α v V v β v v VP t V DP obj Assuming that adverbs are adjoined to v, Fukui and Takano (1988) argue that v in French allows an adverb to appear in the position of α (adverb-verb-dp obj order) and β (verb-adverb-dp obj order), while v in English allows an adverb to occupy the position of α but not of β. As we have seen in section, however, v -adjunction analysis is no longer tenable. Their analysis can be accommodated to the analysis of this paper by assuming that, in French, v alone allows head-adjunction of an adverb to it while English v does not. Consider the following mapping: () a. v v VP DP obj V

13 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs V adverb b. v adverb v v VP DP obj V V t adverb c. v V v adverb v v VP DP obj V t V t adverb In mapping (a) to (b), an adverb is head-adjoined to v, forming a specifier of v. Then, in mapping (b) to (c), V is head-adjoined to v, creating another specifier of v. The resulting structure gives rise to the V-adverb-DP obj order. On the other hand, the adverb-v-dp obj order is derived as in English. Finally, I suggest an extension of the present analysis. As Travis (1988) points out, there are similarities between prenominal adjectives and preverbal adverbs. For example, prenominal adjectives cannot project as the following examples show: () a. the proud (*of their achievements) students b. the fearful (*of Bill) dog

14 Yoshio Nakamura See also Abney (1987) for details. Drawing the parallel between prenominal adjectives and preverbal adverbs, Travis (1988) argues that they are licensed in the same way. It is then conceivable that the head-adjunction analysis is applicable to prenominal adjectives. Fukui and Takano (1998) assume the following structure for a DP the picture: (4) DP the D D picture See also Fukui and Takano (1999) for relevant discussion. In (4), the determiner the is the specifier element that enters into a checking relation with D. The D head selects picture as its complement. Extending the analysis of preverbal adverbs to the DP structure, I propose the following structure for the grammatical case of (a): (5) DP the D D N max/min proud max/min students Suppose that prenominal adjectives are optionally assigned a feature that is checked by head-adjunction of an adjective to N, as in cases of adverb-verb sequences. If this is the case, the adjective proud in (5) can count as a specifier as a result of the checking relation, giving rise to the adjective-noun surface order. The headadjunction operation is not available for adjectival projections such as proud of their achievements. Recall also that such projections are not allowed to adjoin to

15 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs projections of D or N because of Takano s (1996) condition (10). Consequently, nonminimal adjectival projections cannot appear in the prenominal positions as shown (). In this way, the head-adjunction analysis of this paper can account for the parallel with preverbal adverbs that prenominal adjectives show Summary In this paper, it has been argued that adjunction is highly restricted, so that vp/v adjoined positions are not available for the location of nonminimal X max adjuncts. It has also been argued that Fukui and Takano s (1998) system provides an account for the syntax of preverbal adverbs in English under the minimalist assumptions, accommodating the intuitive idea of Travis (1988) that preverbal adverbs have the status as heads. The head-adjunction analysis is shown to open up a new avenue of research into prenominal adjectives. *I am grateful to Chris Tancredi, Yoshiki Ogawa, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. All remaining inadequacies are my own.

16 Yoshio Nakamura Notes 1) Within the framework of the government and binding theory, Travis argues that adverbial PPs, being X max, must be licensed through predication. Since adverbial PPs must be predicated of VP (or IP), they may not appear within the maximal projection of V/Infl. On the other hand, Travis argues that true adverbs, not being X max, cannot be licensed through predication or θ-role assignment. Rather, such adverbs are licensed by being local to (i.e., by being governed by) V or Infl. ) Note that Travis (1988) also mentions that some adverbs take complements (e.g. unfortunately for us). ) Manga (199) observes the following examples: (i) a. Clumsily for an adult John dropped his cup of coffee. b. Stanley ate his Wheaties quickly for a little boy. The constituenthood of (ib) might be questionable, however. Chris Tancredi (personal communication) pointed out to me that there is a comma break between quickly and for a little boy in (ib). 4) Manga (199) observes the following examples: (i) a. * For an adult, John dropped his cup of coffee clumsily. b. * It is clumsily that John dropped his cup of coffee for an adult. c. It is clumsily for an adult that John dropped his cup of coffee. Note that (ia) is grammatical under the different reading from (ii) mentioned in note : (ii) Clumsily for an adult John dropped his cup of coffee. Manga (199) states that (ii) means that John, being an adult, was clumsy to drop his coffee whereas preposing just the PP as in (ia) makes the sentence mean that most adults drop their coffee in a particular way but John did it in a fumbling way. See Manga (199) for details. 5) I put aside the cases like the following: (i) Stanley quite easily ate his Wheaties. The example (i) is cited from Manga (199:55). As we will see below, preverbal adverbs are

17 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs analyzed as being head-adjoined to a verb. I tentatively assume that quite in the above example is somehow head-adjoined to the complex verbal head [easily ate]. As a reviewer pointed out to me, it might be the case that quite is head-adjoined to easily. I leave the matter for future research. 6) For the ban on adjunction to the projection of v, see also Takano (1998). Assuming Fukui s (1986, 1988, 1995) proposal that functional projections are closed off after their heads enter into agreement, Takano (1998) suggests that adjunction to a projection of v is prohibited if v enters into feature checking. 7) Note that the condition stated in (10) excludes the traditional head adjunction structures. As we will see below, the verbal complex V+v in (11) is analyzed based on Fukui and Takano s (1998) phrase structure theory. 8) Alexiadou (1997:17) suggests the possibility of a complex predicate formation for the English preverbal adverbs, though no explicit analysis is offered. 9) See Fukui and Takano (1998) for problems with the stronger version of the uniformity condition proposed in Chomsky (1994, 1995). 10) Note that, contrary to the V-v amalgamation, the adverb-verb amalgamation is optional. If this option is not selected, adverbs such as quickly remain in the complement position of t V as in (15a). 11) I do not go into the precise mechanism of VP-deletion. I tentatively assume that it applies in the phonological component. 1) Assuming pre-minimalist phrase structure theory, Potsdam (1997) argues that VPmodifying adverbs are adjoined to V. As we have seen, such an adjunction analysis is not tenable under the present analysis, however. 1) It has been argued in the literature that sentential adverbs such as probably in the following example is licensed by an Infl head: (i) Horatio probably lost his mind. See Travis (1988), Alexiadou (1997), and Potsdam (1997), among others. Then, the adverb

18 Yoshio Nakamura in (i) should be analyzed as being head-adjoined to T. The syntax of sentential adverbs is beyond the scope of this paper, so I do not go into the issue. 14) As has been observed in the literature, adjectives show different behaviors from adverbs. For example, postnominal adjectives must have complements: (i) a. * the man [proud] b. the man [ AP proud of his son] See Abney (1987) for relevant discussion. I have no explicit account for such properties of adjectives. I speculate that N does not take adjectives as its syntactic complement while V can take adverbs as its complement. If this is correct, AP in (ib) should be regarded as a form of reduced relatives. I leave the matter for future research. See also Kayne (1994) for reduced relative analysis. I am grateful to Yoshiki Ogawa for bringing Kayne (1994) to my attention. References Abney, Steven (1987) The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Alexiadou, Artemis (1997) Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Chomsky, Noam (1994) Bare Phrase Structure, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Also published in Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed. by Gert Webelhuth, Oxford: Blackwell (1995). Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Collins, Chris (1997) Local Economy, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fukui, Naoki (1986) A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Fukui, Naoki (1988) Deriving the Differences between English and Japanese: A Case Study in

19 The Head-Adjunction Analysis of Preverbal Adverbs Parametric Syntax, English Linguistics 5, Fukui, Naoki (1995) The Principles-and-Parameters Approach: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese, In Approaches to Language Typology, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani and Theodora Bynon, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fukui, Naoki and Yuji Takano (1998) Symmetry in syntax: Merge and Demerge, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, Fukui, Naoki and Yuji Takano (1999) Issues of Word Order and the Structure of Noun Phrases, ms., University of California, Irvine, and Kinjo Gakuin University. Jackendoff, Ray (1977) X -syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Manga, Louise (199) The Syntax of Adverbs in English. M.A. thesis, University of Ottawa. McConnell-Ginet, Sally (198) Adverbs and Logical Form: A Linguistically Realistic Theory, Language 58, Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989) Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP, Linguistic Inquiry 0, Potsdam, Eric (1997) A Syntax for Adverbs, ms., University of California, San Diego. Stroik, Thomas (1990) Adverbs as V-sisters, Linguistic Inquiry 1, Takano, Yuji (1996) Movement and Parametric Variation in syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Takano, Yuji (1998) Object Shift and Scrambling, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, Travis, Lisa (1988) The Syntax of Adverbs, In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, McGill University, Montréal, Quévec. Faculty of Economics

20 Yoshio Nakamura Yokohama National University