2. VERB MOVEMENT (IN ENGLISH) VERB MOVEMENT (IN ENGLISH)

Transcription

1 2. VERB MOVEMENT (IN ENGLISH) Verb Movement: Introduction Functional Categories Some General Conclusions Concerning FHs Verb Movement Revisited: Diagnostics The English Finite Verb and Auxiliary Movement The English Verb With Respect to its Arguments The English Verb with Respect to Lexical FHs The English Verb with Respect to Adverbs Theoretical Assumptions Concerning Verb Movement Verbal Inflection: the Adjacency Requirement Summary of Chapter VERB MOVEMENT (IN ENGLISH) 2.1. Verb Movement: Introduction To argue that the nature of scrambling in Czech is a kind of 'A-movement', i.e. a movement from the 'theta' positions of the arguments inside VP into the SPECs of relevant functional categories (FH(AGR)) projections, two other topics mentioned already should be discussed in more detail: First, I am to show that the finite verb in Czech appears in a structural position which enables the resulting structure to show close to free main constituent-order, and second, I am to provide the motivation for the movement of arguments into the SPEC positions. Analyses of the position of the verb are discussed in the following Chapters 2/3/4. The latter topic will be addressed indirectly in Chapter 5, which deals with characteristics of the Czech noun phrase (DP), and then, with respect to interpretation, in Chapter 10. First, I briefly discuss the problem of stating the position of the verb within the sentential structure in 2.1. together with examples appearing in relevant literature. In 2.2. I introduce the concept of functional categories which are potential landing sites for the verb moving outside VP. In 2.3. I add some more theoretical discussion for the standard diagnostics which define the position of verbs within an articulated IP. These are illustrated in more detail in the analysis of the English verb in In the last sections I summarize the theoretical assumptions related to Verb Movement, especially concerning the position of the inflected verb in with respect to functional categories. Already in the 1970s, when within the generative framework a more uniform sentential structure started to be claimed as universal, theories emerged which tried to explain and predict the kinds of movements resulting in cross-linguistic word-order diversity. Given the generally accepted distinction between phrasal 1

2 and head categories, movements of both structures could be and mostly were approached independently. At first the movement of phrasal categories was addressed in more detail with quite promising results. Introduction of traces as relevant parts of the structure, explanations of empirical data using a distinction between argument and non-argument positions/movements, and more unified concepts of governing relations lead to quite concise typologies of phrasal movement, and brought in also theories presenting motivations and constraints on such movements. Some of those conclusions were used in the previous Chapter. When referring to verb movement, i.e. a movement of a X 0 (head) lexical category, in fact two topics appear to be discussed: First, more traditionally, 'verb movement' refers to movement of the verb in some special derived structures (e.g. the I-to-C movement in English question formation), or secondly, it concerns the 'unmarked' position of the verb at the PF level in a given language (e.g. V-to-I movement of a finite verb in French or Italian; or V-to-I-to-C movement in V- second German or Dutch). Both concepts are interrelated, naturally, the latter presenting a starting point needed for the subsequent motivated movements. In both cases, however, the verb movement is presented as a head-to-head movement of a verb generated inside VP into another head position within some kind of functional head I(NFL) or C, i.e. into the functional projection dominating VP. The position of the verb within both cannonical/base and derived sentential structures can be defined with respect to the co-occurring phrasal constituents. The presence/absence or position of distinct forms of negation resulted in claims (e.g. in Klima, 1964) about distinct location of the verb inside a field not easily definable by the presence of phrasal categories only. In Emonds (1978), the verbal position was related also to various kinds of adverbials which do not show purely phrasal characteristics, and, in Koster (1974) to head-like formal elements which appear close and related to the verb. The above mentioned approach leading to more exact formalisation of the verbal position was developed especially after the category of INFL was introduced as an independent projection and was related to the existence of auxiliary, i.e. finite verbal forms. In Emonds (1976, 1978) the distinction between French and English concerning the position of the main verbs and auxiliaries with respect to negative elements and VP-adverbs was used to justify a distinct position of the finite verb/auxiliary moving or not moving from V into INFL over negative and adverbial elements. 1 The category of INFL became a widely accepted part of the sentential structure mainly because of its relevance for distinct verbal positions in distinct languages and above all because of the possibility of expressing the syntactically relevant movements referring directly to it. 1 The concept of Verb Movement is illustrated in more detail, (i.e. with more arguments and data from English, French, and Italian) in the following section

3 In Fassi-Fehri's (1980) analysis of Arabic, and also in Stowell (1981) another category with similarly 'functional' (i.e. distinct from 'lexical') characteristics was introduced, which has been more generally accepted since. C (complementizer) as head and CP (complementizer phrase) as projection became the top sentential projection needed so that the sentence initial elements and phrases moved by Wh- Movement could be represented in a more uniform and formalized structure. As for the verb movements, C 0 is assumed to be the position of the English INFL (i.e. auxiliary) element in an inverted main question structure. The distinction between English versus French finite and non-finite verbs with respect to negative elements was the main argument also in the influential Pollock (1989), where the category INFL was presented as not singulary but as consisting of at least three separable functional projections - T(ense)P, AGR(eement)P and NEG(ation)P, each of them representing specific features and becoming a potential landing site for the upward moving verb. In Chomsky (1991) this structure was accepted with elements reordered as AGR - T. In the same work AGR(subject) was complemented with AGR(object), providing thus a unified approach to structural Case assignment, which came to be exclusively restricted to SPEC-head relations on a relevant level. E.g. TENSE assigns a nominative Case (after raising into AGR S ) to the subject located in SPEC(AGR S ) - and, similarly, VERB raises to AGR o to assign an ACC case to the direct object located in SPEC(AGR 0 ). Since Pollock (1989), the number of functional categories appearing in the literature has rapidly proliferated, to an extent which may expose the whole concept of grammar to a danger of loosing its explanatory force. 2 On the other hand, a limited number of functional categories have been widely accepted as integral parts of a theoretical framework, and the universal character, number, and ordering of functional categories/heads have become central topics for discussion. 3 In this work functional categories form an important part of a sentential structure and therefore in the following section 2.2. I present the conceptualisation of functional categories/heads which I will use in subsequent discussions and analyses. 2 3 In Abney (1987) a noun phrase was quite convincingly argued to contain another functional projection, DP (determiner phrase) above the maximal NP projection. In fact, in the same work Abney predicts and tries to show the presence of similar functional heads and their projections above any lexical phrase. Abney's analysis of English DP and related later proposals are going to be mentioned in more detail in section For relevant and detailed analyses concerning the number and ordering of the functional heads, and of their relation to lexical heads, see e.g. Pollock (1989, 1993), Ouhalla (1990, 1991, 1993), Kayne (1994), and above all Grimshaw (1991). 3

4 2.2. Functional Categories The introduction of functional categories/heads (FHs) into clausal structure, apart from their original relation to verb position and movement, permits capturing also the empirical fact that many lexical categories contain features the presence of which is relevant for their syntactic behaviour (eg. verbs may contain 'tense', nouns 'number' features, etc.), and at the same time in some languages many of these features appear separated from the lexical category connected with them and form independent syntactic units usually of a closed class. This complementarity of how features of a lexical category are morphologically realized (related to functional heads) is addressed at this point in more detail. The descriptive variation of this phenomenon is presented in (1) using the example of a comparative adjective, where English more is a free morpheme related to some functional head of the lexical category of A(djective), and -er is its bound variant. (1) (a) MORE difficult vs. * difficulter (b)?? more easy vs. easi-er In Emonds (1987, 1991a, 1994, 1995) this complementarity is presented as a system of Alternative Realization, which enables the features realized on the head of a sister's phrase (A in (1)) to remain unlexicalised in their original position, i.e. (SPEC(AP) in (1)). 4 His Alternative Realization is restricted to structurally related elements but the distance between the original source of the feature and the place where it becomes realized can in fact substantially vary, being limited both by the definition of a relevant 'sister' at a given stage of derivation and the subcategorizational requirements of some lexical elements. Simplified structures are given below in (2), where the phrasal specification would probably be restricted to lexical categories above all and [+ feature] is generated in SPEC position. This perspective, in my view captures the idea of features reflecting a kind of SPEC-head relation, one of the two assumed checking relations in a theory using functional heads and a checking procedure (e.g. Chomsky 1992). 4 The fact that in some languages the features seem to appear on both SPEC and some related head positions is referred to as parametric variation. In his later work Emonds (1994, 1995) demonstrates that principles of economy exclude one of the variants if they are fully equivalent. 4

5 (2) (a) (b) XP XP SPEC(X) X 0 SPEC(X) X 0 [+ features] [+ features] more difficult 0 easy-er The possibility of grading the characteristics of adjectival or adverbial elements quite universally forms a part of their categorial status. The elements reflecting the grading may be either separate formal elements (e.g. more, less, most in English) or kind of adjectival or adverbial inflection (e.g. -er, -est in English). Introducing an FH with some specification for quantity (gradation), i.e. with some [+]F (=functional) feature defined in this way is a natural consequence of such relation, which is thus formalized as a relation between the coindexed lexical element and a governing functional head containing the [+] feature (i.e. within one extended projection of the lexical category). But in adopting the concept of separate functional heads, the feature complex introduced in (2) as a SPEC becomes a special FH projection above the lexical projection (LexP), and (2) then corresponds to (3) (3) (a) (3) (b) FHP FHP FH LexP=AP FH LexP=AP [+] [+] Lex=A Lex=A more difficult 0 easy-er Moreover, assuming a universal phrase structure for projecting SPEC positions (i.e. adjoined phrasal positions related to the head) above the zero node, in headinitial languages the structures in (3) correspond to those in (4). In (4), the position of the lexical heads difficult and easy as well as of the abstract features [+] are kept as in (3). What now becomes a relevant question is the positions of more and the morpheme -er. One may imagine putting both into the F 0 -head since they represent the [+] feature themselves and/or because they have arguably head-like properties. Then a movement, i.e. raising, of easy into FH can be assumed (as e.g. in Baker, 1985, 1988) to form a lexical unit with the 5

6 bound morpheme -er. However, this is not the only possibility, as will be shown below. On the other hand, because of the possibility of phrasally projecting an FH, more may also be placed in a phrasal, i.e. SPEC(FHP), position and then be prohibited from co-occurring with any other SPEC. (4) (a) (4) (b) FHP FHP SP(FHP) FH' SP(FHP) FH' FH 0 LexP FH 0 LexP [+]?? [+]?? SP(LP) Lex' SP(LP) Lex' Lex 0 Lex 0 : difficult easy Following the lexicalist hypothesis as most recently repeatedly presented in e.g. Chomsky (1991) and the Minimalist Programme in Chomsky (1992), head raising, i.e. the movement relating the lexical head to the features of the FH (Lex-to-FH Movement), can take place either in overt syntax, or (as Chomsky prefers) the lexical item can be generated in its original position together with the relevant morphology representing the features of the FH. In the latter case the raising movement can take place at LF only (and then obligatorily, since the features need checking to be interpretable). 5 This conceptualisation is demonstrated in the following scheme (repeating (1) from Chapter 1): Move Alpha can take place either in overt syntax (i.e. before Spell Out leading to the PF interface) or after Spell Out (i.e. covertly, in the way from Spell Out to the LF interface). 5 For the history of this concept and its alternatives see also section

7 'Move Alpha' overt covert movement movement LEXICON >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spell Out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LF In other words, Minimalist Theory requires all relevant morphophonemic features to be checked (i.e. reflected by a head-head or a SPEC-head relations which are results of a movement) but not necessarily before LF. The syntactic movement visible at PF (i.e. 'pronounced') is explained by Chomsky's principle of Greed, i.e. the presence of a strong feature on at least one of the elements which are checked one against the other. This theory assumes that the presence of a strong, i.e. PF-visible, feature causes the unacceptability of a structure if it is not checked (i.e. eliminated) before Spell Out, i.e. PF. Covert (i.e. 'unpronounced') LF movement is required when some features are present but none of them is strong. When all the features are weak, they do not interfere the PF structure, i.e. they are PF-invisible, and the element does not move as early (at PF). When the checking movement is delayed until the 'abstract' LF, the movement is less costly within the framework, which is assured by Chomsky's complementary principle Procrastinate. 6 Following the above, and given the fact that -er in (2/3/4) is a bound morpheme, which presumably restricts its occurrence to head positions, it can occur separated in either FH 0 or together with the lexical item in Lex 0, and the checking against the abstract strong or weak [+] feature can take place at PF or be postponed to LF respectively. To locate the bound morpheme in SPEC(FH) seems excluded because -er shows no phrase-like properties. Its right position indicates left adjunction of the stem to it (cf. Kayne 1994), i.e. a standard head-to-head configuration for feature checking in head-initial languages. (5) shows the PF variants of -er insertion, following the theoretical background underlying the distinct derivations. PF 6 Sometimes confusion may appear here because of the syntactic terminology. From a more morphological point of view, the features 'invisible' for well-formedness (i.e. 'convergence') of the derivation at PF, i.e. those signaling no syntactic raising, may be pretty visible at PF, represented by some kind of inflection. On the other hand the 'visible', 'strong' features, related to visible raising of the item into the proper checking positions at PF are not necessarily visible themselves, i.e. they need not be signalled by any overt morphology. (For more discussion see also (11) in Chapter 1.) Therefore I am going to avoid the 'visibility' terminology and refer to strong versus weak distinction. 7

8 The variant in (5a) shows overt PF raising: i.e. a presence of some strong feature at FH and raising of easy(er) into the FH with a trace (t) left on its original Lex 0 position. The variant in (5b) assumes LF raising (i.e. Alternative Realization in the sense of Emonds (1987, 1994)). The FH in (5b) contains a weak feature only; easy is generated together with an -er morpheme under Lex 0 and the [+] feature is checked as late as at LF (where (5b) becomes (5a)). (5) (a) [+F] strong (5) (b) [+F] weak FHP FHP SP(FHP) FH' SP(FHP) FH' FH 0 LexP FH 0 LexP [+]?? [+]?? easy+er SP(LP) Lex' SP(LP) Lex' Lex 0 Lex 0 : (t) 0 easy+er Since (5a) and (5b) would be morphologically identical at PF, as long as we remained restricted to the data given here, there are no conclusive arguments preferring the PF or LF movement. 7 And. since the definition of strong versus weak features is derived from the movement which it presumably causes, the distinction between (5a) and (5b) cannot be resolved using only theoretical motivations. 7 It is tempting to assume that 'strong' features are signalled by a 'strong', inflection, i.e. inflection/morphology which is overt = this meaning generated separately in a FH. Than obligatory overt movement would follow, since such inflection cannot appear at PF as a separate lexical item because it is subcategorized as a bound morpheme and the lexical element must support it by its raising. Weak (invisible) 'inflection' would be than generated together with a lexical head and claiming distinct base positions would be the formal way of capturing a distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' features. However, morphology and wordorder don't seem to correlate since at least some 'strong' features do not result in any overt morphology. E.g. the movement of English I into C in questions (see (16) below) does not result in any morphology which could not be assumed to be present in I already. In Chapter 1 (11) I proposed that if a lexical element can be generated in its base position together with inflection reflecting some feature X, the raising (if attested) is caused by other feature rather than X Therefore in (5a) no separated positions for easy and -er are claimed although such a possibility is not excluded either 8

9 Corresponding to (5), the structures (6) below show the variants of more insertion. To derive the unit more together with difficult at Lex 0 seems to be excluded because they are separate lexical items. Since more may also be claimed to show some phrasal characteristics, the two alternatives show more generated as either SPEC(FH) in (6a) or FH in (6b). (6) (a) (b) FHP FHP SP(FHP) FH' SP(FHP) FH' more FH 0 LexP FH 0 LexP [+]?? [+]?? SP(LP) Lex' more SP(LP) Lex' Lex 0 Lex 0 : difficult difficult In (6) above, the overt raising of the word difficult would be required if the FH above contained some strong feature which needs checking before Spell Out. 8 The feature of the FH may be weak or strong regardless the presence of more and the movement might take place at LF or PF. Assuming then the possibility in (6) of either PF or LF movement, the structures in (6a) and (6b) are not identical. If we are limited to the data given here, for (6a) above the distinction between PF or LF movement would not necessarily result in any visible distinction since in both cases the resulting string would be identical, i.e. more difficult. On the other hand, the PF movement (6b) seems to be theoretically excluded, since at least for head initial English, difficult would presumably have to left adjoin more. Since this is not the case (*difficult more), then the [+]F feature seems to be satisfied at the PF level (arguably by the presence of more). Any possible LF raising of difficult to more could be only invisible, i.e. at LF, i.e. hard to attest. So, either the [+]F feature is weak=invisible, when more is present, or the structure (6b) is excluded. Notice, however, that even though the structure *difficult more is ungrammatical in English, there are structures like difficult enough (and similar structures with genug in German), which require the adjective to precede the 8 For the lexical word this possibility is excluded by definition assuming the features of the lexical categories to be all weak. 9

10 grading element. The analysis of more in FH in (6b) than may be supported by these examples, claiming that while more eliminates the strong [+F] feature, enough does not and therefore overt raising is required. There is no such easy way to get the ordering difficult enough using the structure (6a) which therefore becomes a less plausible formalisation of the phenomena. Also, looking at the examples (6) above, the problem of co-occurrence of more and some phrasal structure in the SPEC of the FH arises. For (6a) no phrasal unit is predicted to precede more difficult because the SPEC position is occupied by the unit more. For (6b) no restriction like that holds. Notice than, that English measure phrases typically co-occur with grading words (see e.g. Jackendoff, 1977). Structures like MUCH/THREE TIMES/A GREAT DEAL more difficult can easily be taken for structures with measure phrases in SPEC(FH) in (6b). 9 Therefore (6b) proves again to be a superior to (6a) Some General Conclusions Concerning FHs Given all the reasons above, the theory of checking strong features versus maximal lexical projections provides separate head nodes for both elements but it does not itself seem to provide any unambiguous determination of the positions of the elements involved. It was only the properties of the inserted items (i.e. their bound vs. non-bound character and head or non-head characteristics) and distributional properties (i.e the ordering and co-occurrence restrictions with other elements like measure phrases) which were used to argue for the structure (6b). Moreover, the number of functional categories related to the lexical element can be higher than one, i.e. the lexical item may have more than one feature which needs checking. By theoretical assumption all features of lexical items are weak and the distinction between weak and strong features is thus limited to the features of the FHs themselves. The only theoretical restriction on structures like (5) or (6) with more than one FH seems to be the locality restrictions, formulated usually as a requirement on adequate government of the trace of the moved element, i.e. by the Head Movement Constraint or the ECP. The Head Movement Constraint was originally proposed by Travis (1984). The following definition is from Chomsky (1986a). (7) (a) Head Movement Constraint (Chomsky 1986a:71) Movement of a zero-category b is restricted to the position of a head a that governs the maximal projection g of b, where a 9 (6b) analysis can also explain why measure phrases in English occur preceding +A/+P categories but never preverbally. If measure phrases occupy the SPEC(FH) position of a FH with feature reflecting quantity, one may claim that such a FH governing VP is either not present at all (and therefore measure phrases must follow the verb) or is occupied by some other element, e.g. the subject, showing number agreement with verb 10

11 theta-governs or L-marks g if a is not C. In Baker (1988) HMC is reduced on a variety of the Empty Category Principle, i.e. related to the requirement on proper government of the trace of the removed element. (7) (b) Head Movement Constraint (Baker, 1988:53) An X 0 may only move into the Y 0 which properly governs it. The conceptualization of FHs, therefore, seems to provide clues mainly for the ordering of elements. This correlation was introduced in Baker (1985) as a Mirror Principle. (7c) is a result of accepting the framework which allows only left adjunction or substitution (cf. Kayne, 1994), and assuming some adjacency requirement on head movement that makes it impossible to skip an intervening head. 10 (7) (c) Mirror Principle (Baker, 1985) The order of affixes on a verb reflects the order in which operations on the verb have taken place. To sum up, in the framework of Grimshaw's concept of extended projections (see Grimshaw (1991) and Chomsky (1994), both inflectional morphology and the fact that a lexical category is related to its functional projections even when they are represented by separate elements are captured by a concept of raising (adjunction or substitution) of lexical heads into governing FHs. Additional rules for PF and LF raising of a lexical head or parts of its maximal projection offer an explanation for the immense word order variations within the whole extended projections (i.e. the coindexed lexical + functional projections). In other words, functional categories. and their SPECs project according to the universal rules of phrase projection over their related lexical elements. The presence of FH containing relevant activized features above a lexical category explains the presence of a bound morpheme with the same features on the lexical element itself. At the same time some 'missing' semantic features and specific behaviour of such deficient lexical units may be argued to derive from the absence of some relevant functional projection in a given language. Besides of the clear advantages resulting from the use of functional categories, there are still many problems with their proper characterisation and formalisation, 10 None of the above mentioned criteria, however, make the choice of underlying analysis unique, as long as the procedure of checking the features is not fully worked out. Thus even within the most elaborated extended projection of VP, very different results can be achieved as evidenced by the obviously distinct analyses in e.g. Pollock (1993) or Koopman (1993) 11

12 which are topics of much present research. A great flexibility of the system is on the one hand presented as an advantage because, by using simple distinctive characteristics of the relevant FHs features, it is possible to derive a large enough number of possibilities for cross-linguistic word-order variation. On the other hand, more precise empirical and exact diagnoses which could precisely locate the position of FHs seem to be needed Verb Movement Revisited: Diagnostics In a clause, which is (in a simplified version) an extended verbal projection, the split IP, i.e. the verbal FHs projected above VP, provides checking points where the morphophonological features of the verb and its arguments are checked one against another. E.g. nominal features of verbal arguments are checked against matching verbal features to form the complex of clausal relations. Thus the AGR S +T complex of FHs is the point where the relevant (syntactic) features needed for the concept of SUBJECT (e.g. agreement, Case) are checked against the verb. For this checking the phrase containing the DP subject in the SPEC(FH) position is needed, together with the verb in the same FH 0 -head position. Whether the presence of either or both of them is required in overt syntax (i.e. overt raising of the nominal and/or of the verbal element) or at LF only is a language-specific parametric variation, constrained by principle of economy (Procrastinate) applied to the above mentioned concept of distinct strong versus weak features. Naturally, if there are more than one possibly strong FH and only one verb available, an overt SPEC-head relation of the verb with each of the SPEC(FH)s is not possible, but such positioning can be satisfied by subsequent movement of the verb through all strong (or interfering weak) FHs. Clearly, the features of the agreements of the verb with its arguments (i.e. subject and object agreements) are not the only features appearing within a split IP. Some FHs are assumed to contain features not related to any phrasal subject or verbal complement, i.e. features which were in traditional grammar taken as purely verbal - e.g. Tense or Aspect, or as related to the sentence as a whole, - e.g. sentential Modality. These features must also be checked, and the checking relations usually require the raising of the verb (at PF or LF) and its (left) adjunction to or substitution for the FHs, i.e. a head-to-head relation. Moreover, some checking relations instantiate both SPEC-head and head-to-head relations. 11 Chomsky (1995) proposes a radical restriction on the number of functional categories (within a verbal projection V(verb) and T(ense) only). In as much Chomsky's (1995) framework requires reformulation of many principles assumed here (presumably reformulating of the many functional projections into a rich feature content of the few lexical categories), I am not going to pursue his proposal here. I will assume, that even with some inconsistency, the formal concept of 'functional projection' is needed to capture empirical data, and however they will be reformulated in the future, at present it is the only sufficiently developed and available tool for expressing the particularities of syntax 12

13 E.g. for English the WH Criterion of Rizzi (1990, 1991a/b) requires the Wh feature to appear at C (e.g. as a result of a head-to-head movement of the verb) and to be checked with the Wh-operator (represented by e.g. the Wh phrase in SPEC(CP)). The procedure sketched above shows clearly the complexity of the problem. Assuming that the verb is generated inside VP, it can in an unmarked standard sentence in a given language appear anywhere higher then V because of the feature characteristics of the FHs within its extended projection. There are several ways used to determine its position. The diagnostics most commonly used fix the verbal position with respect to some other element occurring in a given field. Those elements can be as follows in (8). (8) (a) - overt phrasal units co-occurring with the verb, (b) - lexical FHs, (c) - verbal morphology (reflecting the presence of a FH). In the following section 2.4. I am going to examine all three of these methods in more detail as they have been applied to English, together with brief notes concerning other languages. In Chapter 3 I am going to follow the same procedure with the Czech verb The English Finite Verb and Auxiliary Movement In this section the position of the English verb in unmarked affirmative structures is briefly summarized, following more or less the Extended Standard Theory, Government and Binding, and Minimalist frameworks. Sections give the descriptive analysis positioning the English finite verb following the criteria (8a-c) above, i.e. with respect to co-occurring elements and its own properties. In section 2.8. various theoretical assumptions concerning the verb position are examined, following mainly Emonds (1978), Pollock (1989), Ouhalla (1990, 1991), Rizzi (1990, 1991a), and Chomsky (1991, 1992). Section 2.9 presents more discussion concerning requirements on head-to-head movement and the structure required for morphological realization of FH features The English Verb With Respect to its Arguments The ordering of the main sentential constituents provides the basic typological characteristics of a given language. For English, the unmarked constituent-order is Subject - Verb - Object (S-V-O). This statement provides the ordering of clausal elements which co-occur with the verb within one clause, i.e. the position of the verb with respect to the verbal arguments (DPs and/or PP's). 13

14 The ordering of subject and object DPs with respect to the verb are certainly relevant in English, given the contrast between (a) and (b/c) in the example (9) below. 12 (9) (a) A boy/he wrote a letter/it to Mary/to her. (b) * A letter/it wrote a boy/he to Mary/to her. (c) * To Mary/to her a letter/it wrote a boy/he. In (10) below an auxiliary is used in otherwise similar patterns. (10) (a) A boy/he is writing a letter/it to Mary/to her. (b) * A letter/it is writing a boy/he to Mary/to her. (c) * To Mary/to her a letter/it is writing a boy/he. Thus, taking into account only subject and object positions, the position of the English main verb and/or auxiliary for the affirmative declarative clause with no extraposition follows the subject DP and precedes the object DP, i.e. as in (11). (11) Subject DP - auxiliary/verb - object DP Since the canonical position of the subject DP is assumed to be in the SPEC of one of the very top FHs (AGR S ) within the split IP governing VP, there are still several lower FHs potentially available for the auxiliary/verb. More revealing patterns could be shown for English questions and negative clauses, but since these structures contain FHs, they are going to be introduced in section 2.6. in more detail, especially with regard to main vs. auxiliary verb distinctions The English Verb with Respect to Lexical FHs In (9) and (10) above both auxiliary and finite verbs in English appeared in the same position with respect to subject and object DPs. The sentence structures for questions and negative clauses reveal, however, clearly definable distinctions. (12) contains such structures with an auxiliary verb while (13) demonstrates similar structures containing a finite verbal form. 12 The examples of English used in the text below are either common standard sentences or examples cited in the literature. Examples from other languages are given only to show the relevant diagnostic process and their evaluation follows the evaluations of authors of the cited works. 14

15 (12) (a) John will write a letter. (b) Will John write a letter? (c) John will not write a letter. so too (13) (a) John writes a letter. (b) * Writes John a letter? (c) * John writes not a letter. so too If the rules for movement operations depend on structure, the above examples of direct questions argue for a distinct structural position of the auxiliary verb in English, with such a distinct position higher in the clausal structure and, above all, as shown by the unacceptability of (13b/c) not available for the main finite verb. The example (12c) moreover shows that AUX is divided from the verb by negation. Because neither AUX nor negation seem to have phrasal properties, (12) and (13) at the same time exemplify two lexical FHs in English: AUX FH(INFL) and negation FH(NEG). The ordering is given in (14). (14) Subject - AUX:FH(INFL) - FH(NEG) - Main Verb The examples in (15) and (16) below confirm the syntactic relevance of a theory claiming separate positions for AUX and the finite main verb in English. The example (15) repeats (12b) and suggests in more detail a structure for question formation in a sentence containing AUX. (15) (a) Will John write a letter? (b) * Write will John a letter? (c) * Will not John write a letter? (d) Won't John write a letter? Taking the position of the English AUX as INFL, separated from both NEG and VERB (main verb), enables us to capture question formation as in (15) as a movement of INFL (containing AUX) to a position preceding the subject. In the present framework such a movement is analyzed as I-to-C movement triggered by the presence of a strong +Wh feature or Wh-operator in the CP region (i.e. by the Wh Criterion as presented in Rizzi, 1991a/b). The examples (15b) and (15c) also show that only INFL is moved, while both NEG and VERB must remain below the subject. (15d) exemplifies the NEG cliticized on INFL, which is a process enabling NEG to join INFL in question inversion. The following (16) gives the 15

16 schematic picture of the I-to-C movement exemplified in (15a). (VP is simplified and the subject DP is shown in its cannonical position.) (16) I-to-C Movement CP SP(C) C' C 0 IP SP(I) I' I 0 VP DP Will John (t) write a letter? The following example (17) repeats (13b) and shows an interrogative sentence with no AUX, i.e. in a simple present. (17) (a) * Writes John a letter? (b) Does John write a letter? The ungrammaticality of (17a) has already been used to claim that the position of the main English verb is lower than INFL(=I): since a finite verb cannot be moved in front of the subject, I-to-C movement does not refer to main verb in English. Therefore the main verb is argued not to be located in I but to remain in its original position V inside VP. The grammatical form given in (17b) provides a standard argument for hypothesizing the periphrastic character of English simple tenses or for stating various rules for DO-insertion (cf. Chomsky 1957), i.e. insertion of the supporting AUX do into the INFL position in questions or negative clauses in English. More details about both conceptualisations appear in the sections below.taking into account the morphology of the English verb, the example (18) below shows that a presence of any assumed lexical FH between the subject and the verb makes finite verbal morphology unacceptable. (18) (a) John will/does write (/*writes) a letter. (b) John will/does not write (/* writes) a letter. so too (c) Will/Does John write (/* writes) a letter? V 0 16

17 In (18a) it is the presence of will or emphatic inflected does, in (18b) also the presence of the negative element not or other syntactic equivalents, and in (18c) the presence of will or interrogative does (in C) which apparently block the possibility of the inflected finite verb form writes. The following (19) shows that a similar blocking effect is observed also with inflection for the feature of tense. (19) (a) John did write (/*wrote) a letter. (b) John did not write (/* wrote) a letter. (c) Did John write (/* wrote) a letter? Both subject agreement in (18) and the inflection for tense in (19) are blocked by negation (a reflection of a FH(NEG)). Both AGR and TENSE are since Pollock (1989) supposed to be separate FHs. Notice, then, that in (19b) the tense feature expressed on AUX precedes negation, providing an argument for the claim that FH(Tense) is in English located above FH(NEG). The assumption is supported also by example (19c) where TENSE seems to be always a part of INFL inverted in questions via I-to-C movement, while NEG can become a part of it only after cliticization, and can thus become separated from both INFL and TENSE as in (15) or (20) below. (20) (a) Did John not write a letter? (b) Didn't John write a letter? (c) * Did not John write a letter? The structure in (21) below gives the resulting picture of the English extended verbal projection, as far as has been presented up to now. (21) AGR S P SPEC AGR S AGR S TP SPEC T' T NegP SPEC Neg' Neg VP V subject - AUX - Tense - neg - verb 17

18 Assuming a structure in (21), the examples showing distinct positions for the AUX and finite verb in English can be used as arguments for the claim that English finite verb morphology is not a result of overt PF verb raising, but is a mere reflection (not very rich or revealing in English) of existing FHs above the VP. The ungrammaticality of the parenthesized examples in (18) and (19) is thus attributed to the presence of some lexical FH between the FH whose features are reflected and the verb. Notice, however, that for any such claim the analysis of English not as a lexical FH(Neg) seems to be required in (21). Yet, such an analysis is not so obvious, since cross-linguistic variation seems to indicate that negation is more varied both structurally and conceptually. In English, consider the contrast between e.g. never and not in (22). Not in (22b) is usually argued to be either a FH itself or some adverb closely related to FH, which, being a clitic, requires some kind of preceding verbal element to adjoin to. (22) (a) John never comes late. (b) * John not come(s) late Taking not for an adverbial clitic which is otherwise identical to never, however, calls for some additional characteristics for such clitic elements, since while in (22a) a standard 'short' adverb never does not block inflection on the finite verb, the not element does. Therefore I will accept the analysis taking not as a FH and never as an adverb which is either adjoined to some maximal FH projection or is located in a SPEC of a FH (FH:NEG seems to be the most commonly proposed candidate). The distinction between not and never is then stated in structural terms and the structure itself explains why never does not interfere with the inflection on the verb. (For English verbal inflection see also 2.8. and 2.9.) Leaving the problem of negation aside for the time being, in (22) never represents an example of an adverb, which are elements standardly used for determining the position of the verb inside a split-ip. The following section 2.7. discusses English finite verbs and AUXs in relation to adverbs The English Verb with Respect to Adverbs As is clear from the above, the position of a verb is related to other elements co-occurring in a clause. The position of other elements, however, is not always clear enough. The status of not as a FH(NEG) is not universally accepted, and the situation is not much better with English short preverbal adverbs either. Even if their possibility to project is highly restricted and adverbial PPs do not alternate with them, 'short' adverbs are usually taken for non-heads and their location is assumed to be in SPEC(FH) or as phrasally adjoined to some maximal (both 18

19 lexical and functional) projection. The question remains whether such SPEC or adjoined positions can be taken for fixed in at least one language, or languages typologically close to each other. 13 Nonetheless, since Emonds (1978) adverbs and negation have been repeatedly presented as the main empirically testable elements for both English and crosslinguistic fixing of the verbal position; some more or less fixed (or at least structurally definable) positions of adverbs are assumed in most present works, two of which I am going to mention schematically below. The following examples (23) and (24) repeat the arguments in the often cited Pollock (1989) for the different positions of the finite verbs in (F) French and (E) English (the author assumes a similar or identical underlying structure). (23) (a) * Jean souvent embrasse Marie. (F) John often kisses Mary. (E) (b) Jean embrasse souvent Marie. (F) * John kisses often Mary. (E) (24) (a) Jean n'aime pas Marie. (F) * John likes not Mary. (E) (b) * Jean pas aime Marie. (F) * John not likes Mary. (E) Emonds and Pollock assume a fixed position of VP adverbs such as often in English and souvent in French as exemplified in (23). In addition, English not and French pas i (24) are traditionally taken for equivalents. Therefore the above (23) and (24) lead the authors to claim, that while in English the finite verb remains inside VP (i.e. following both often and not), the French finite verb raises above the VP adverb souvent and negation pas and appears higher in the string of FHs projected above VP in the position preceding both adverbs and negation. In Pollock (1989) the position of the French finite verb is FH(TENSE), which in the author's conception at that time governed FH(AGR S ). Examples in (25) and (26) are taken from Belletti (1994), who cites Pollock and presents similar cross-linguistic variations for English, French, and Italian (I). (25) (a) Jean n'aime pas Marie. (F) * Jean ne pas aime Marie. (F) 13 E.g. Williams (1994) rejects the idea of any fixed position of adverbs claiming that the subcategorizational properties of the adverbs and their scope (above all for negation) are the criteria which decide their structural position in a string. 19

20 John not Neg like Mary (b) (c) * John likes not Mary. (E) Gianni non parla piú. (I) * Gianni non piú parla. (I) John not Neg speaks 'John doesn't speak.' The above examples (25) show that contrary to English, in both French and Italian the finite verbs raise above NegP, represented in (25) by the French and Italian negative adverbs pas, piú, and English not. In her work Belletti uses more examples similar to (25) and (26) below, combining VP, sentential and negative/positive adverbs with AUXs and finite verbs. Examples like (26) lead Belletti to claim that there is also difference between Italian and French, since the Italian AUX and verb in (26b) can occupy an even higher position than its French or English counterparts in (26a/b). (26) (a) Jean n' a pas parlé (*pas). (F) (b) Gianni non ha piú parlato (piú). (I) (c) John (*not) has not spoken (*not) (E) The negative adverbs pas and piú are located by Belletti (1994) in the SPEC(Neg). NegP is placed between AGRP and TP and Italian non and French ne (and probably English not) occupy the head position of such NegP. The positions of NegP in French and Italian, however is signalled by their SPECs (i.e. the adverbs) since the heads non and ne are 'clitic elements' and they move together with the verb to a higher (AGR) head. Consequently Belletti (1994) proposes a structure with an FH(NEG/Positive) between AGR S P and TP, and trying to explain some Italian characteristics she even claims this AGR S to be recursive in Italian. 14 The scope characteristics of adverbs in English, which seem to be to a certain extent derivable from their PF position, thus predict the level on which they are adjoined to the sentence structure at PF. The following examples (27) are taken from Emonds (1976) and indicate the limited positions of some manner adverbs in English. (In (27b) the bracketed adverbs are impossible in any of the positions marked as (*), though cautiously is felicitous with 'factive' reading). 14 The examples (23)-(26) above are not sufficient to make the reader fully familiar with any of the cited works. More detailed data are presented in either of them, including non-obvious analyses of the status of all the participating elements. The examples are given here just to exemplify the diagnoses which assume fixed (at least in closely related languages) positions of adverbs and negative adverbs for determining the position of the verb. 20

21 (27) (a) The sun is shining dimly through the clouds. The building was being destroyed completely. He could have been driving cautiously his car. (b) The sun (*) is (dimly) shining through the clouds. The building (*) was (*) being (completely) destroyed. He (*) could (*) have (*) been (cautiously) driving his car. Manner adverbs, which can in English appear also postverbally, as exemplified by (27a), are taken here for verbal adjuncts, i.e. VP adverbs with a scope over the VP. The examples in (27b) show that such VP adverbs in English must follow AUX but precede the finite verb, supporting once again the latter's separate distinct positions. The relation of a given element with respect to a VP adverb is assumed to reveal whether a given element is able to leave the VP projection (it can then precede the VP adverb) or not. However, given the scope requirements, if the element cannot precede the VP adverb, the analysis need not, in my view, yet imply that the element is initial to VP. Contrary to VP adverbs, sentence adverbs, having scope over the whole proposition (for English see e.g. Jackendoff 1972), are traditionally analyzed as always adjoined higher within the split IP. Therefore in English sentence adverbs like probably can precede both AUX and the verb, as shown in (28) below. The immediate postverbal position, however, is excluded for a sentence scope interpretation. (28) (a) John probably has not made several mistakes. (b) John has not probably made several mistakes. (c) * John has not made probably several mistakes. Using the schematic structure given in (21) above, the distinction between (27) and (28) shows that (at least in English) the VP adverbs are supposed to adjoin below NegP, while sentence adverbs are either below NegP or above TP. If we follow Kayne's (1994) theoretical framework prohibiting more than one SPEC for any kind of projection, the positions of such adverbs would have to be not adjoined to maximal projections, but rather located in either SPECs of some of the FHs given in (21), or of some other FHs created (especially?) for adverbs. To sum up, given the descriptive data, English is characteristically presented as a language where the verbal element highest in the split-ip reflects subject agreement, followed by Tense, and then Negation. The position of a non-finite verb following AUX is not very distinct from the position of a finite verb if no AUX is present: both are located either inside VP or very close to it. The latter claim, that the verb leaves VP, cannot be directly evidenced in English, since the verb would always follow the subject and all lexical FHs in English, and at the same time precede its objects. 21

22 Therefore further arguments concerning other FHs and their relation to verbal positions in English are derived from theoretical assumptions, which are going to be discussed in more detail in the following sections 2.8. (as for the position of the verb) and 2.9. (for the assumed relation between the structure and inflection) Theoretical Assumptions Concerning Verb Movement Since this problem is of great relevance in this work, I am going to dwell in more detail here (and in section 2.9.) on the latest development of theoretical concepts concerning the position of the English finite verb with respect to its morphology. As for the descriptive empirical data, the position of the finite verb in English seems to be generally accepted as presented just above. What still remains distinct are the theoretical explanations for the presence or absence of Verb movement and also of the presence and absence of the morphology appearing on English finite verb. In Chomsky (1957 and 1975) the morphology appearing on the English verb is presented as a result of 'affix hopping', and as such the analysis has long survived. As late as in Chomsky (1991), an identical idea was expressed again under the term of I-to-V lowering, resulting in a structure V + INFL. 15 Following the empirical arguments demonstrated in Emonds (1978) and theoretical framework introduced in Pollock (1989), Chomsky (1991) accepts the parametric distinction between English and French INFL. Pollock (1989) argues that a 'strong AGR' causes raising of the French finite verb, while the 'weak AGR' in English can cause only AUX but not a verb to raise. Main verb raising is ungrammatical because it would create an opaque structure in English (in French the structure is supposed to be transparent). The verb would not be able to transmit theta indices to its arguments, violating the Theta Criterion. Since AUXs assign no theta roles, they can, i.e. must, raise into INFL in English as well as in French. Similar approach is pursued also in Roberts's (1985, 1993) studies of historical development of English. However, given Chomsky's (1991) framework, after the lowering of INFL into V, the trace of English INFL is arguably ungoverned at PF since it cannot be plausibly governed by the V + INFL complex inside VP. To avoid a violation of the Empty Category Principle (ECP), Chomsky had to propose that the ECP is satisfied through proper chain formation relevant as late as at LF, i.e. after the subsequent LF V + INFL-back to-i raising. The LF raising (contrary to the preceding I-to-V lowering, surprisingly) is assumed to be blocked by the presence of 15 Emonds (1987, 1994) gives the example of inflection appearing on the lexical verb in English (i.e. the structure V+INFL) as one of the examples showing the structural relation needed for his concept of Alternative Realization of a SPEC feature (subject agreement) on a related lexical head (verb). No movement, however, is assumed for Alternative Realization in that framework. 22