Features, θ-roles, and Free Constituent Order

Transcription

1 1 Features, θ-roles, and Free Constituent Order Gisbert Fanselow This paper pursues two different but related goals. On the one hand, it shows that free constituent order (at least the type one finds in German) does not arise by scrambling, because scrambling is incompatible with fundamental assumptions of the Minimalist Program (Section 1), and because the arguments that have been brought forward in its favor are either false or inconclusive (Sect. 2). On the other hand, it pro-poses a theory of θ-role assignment by feature checking that explains the difference between free (Sect. 3) and fixed (Sect. 4) constituent order languages in terms of the strength of the uninterpretable features involved in the process. Section 5 argues that the crucial property of polysynthetic languages is the absence of such uninterpretable features linked to arguments, and derives some of the standard theorems of θ-theory in the new model. The scope of the article is confined to A-Scrambling in the sense of Déprez (1989) and Mahajan (1990). The approach can be extended to A-bar-scrambling (see Fanselow 2000a), but I cannot go into this issue here for space reasons. 1. Scrambling in a Minimalist Framework 1.1. Scrambling = Attraction of L-related (D-) Features? Movement is subject to economy conditions in the sense that phrases move only when necessary. This basic insight is spelt out in Chomsky 1995:chapter IV in a specific way that I will call "strict minimalism": α moves only if it is attracted by a head β, and β attracts α only if this implies the checking of an uninterpretable feature f of β. Movement can apply in the overt or the covert (LF-) component of grammar. It is overt only if the attracting feature is strong, in which case it must be checked imme- 1

2 2 diately. [I] restricts the choice of strong features: overt movement can only be triggered by categorial features (such as the EPP-feature D) of functional categories. Furthermore, movement is subject to the MLC in a restrictive way: the MLC is not a violable economy condition, but part of the definition of Move/Attract α. [I] Only categorial features of non-substantive categories can be strong. [II] Minimal Link Condition (MLC): K attracts α only if there is no β, β closer to K, such that K attracts β (Chomsky 1995:310). [III] α is closer to target K than β if α c-commands β (Chomsky 1995:358). Scrambling (at least in German) does not fit into strict minimalism. Note first that the attracting feature would have to be l(exically)-related, triggering A-movement: German scrambling is confined to arguments. Thus, predicative/resultative phrases and modal adverbs, which are merged adjacent to the verb, do not scramble (1b), but undergo topicalization (1c) 1 (see Steinitz 1969, Fanselow 1993, Neeleman 1994). This follows if the features triggering scrambling combine with arguments only. (1) a. [ CP dass [ TP Fritz leider dumm geblieben ist]] that Fritz unfortunately stupid remained is b. *?[ CP dass [ TP dumm i [ TP Fritz leider t i geblieben ist]]] c. [ CP dumm i [[ Comp ist j ] [ TP Fritz leider t i geblieben t j ]]] '(that) Fritz unfortunately remained stupid' Adjunct-PPs and temporal/local adverbs can, however, be ordered freely, cf. (2). There are three possible accounts for this: such adverbials might be merged freely in any position, the arguments might be able to scramble to the left of them, or the adverbials might themselves be scrambled. The third alternative denies that scrambling is 2

3 3 confined to arguments, and can be excluded on the basis of (3) and (4). (2) a. [ CP dass [ TP niemand [ VP das Buch morgen liest]]] that nobody the book tomorrow reads 'that nobody will read the book tomorrow' b. [ CP dass [ TP niemand [ VP morgen das Buch liest]]] c. [ CP dass [ TP morgen niemand [ VP das Buch liest]]] (3) a. dass [ TP niemand [ CP PRO den Peter zu fragen] versprach] that nobody the.acc Peter to ask promised 'that nobody promised to ask Peter' b. dass [[den Peter i ][ TP niemand [[ CP PRO (t i ) zu fragen] versprach]]] (4) a. dass niemand [ CP PRO morgen ein Buch zu lesen] versprach that nobody tomorrow a book to read promised 'that nobody promised to read a book tomorrow' b. #dass [morgen i [ TP niemand [ CP PRO *t ein Buch zu lesen] versprach]] In (3b), an object of an embedded infinitive appears in front of the matrix subject. German scrambling can cross sentential boundaries in constructions involving LF-incorporation of the lower verb (coherent infinitives, see Grewendorf & Sabel 1994). (4b) involves a coherent infinitive, too, but in this example, an adverb rather than an argument precedes the matrix subject. Unlike (4a), (4b) has a deviant interpretation only: the temporal adverb and the matrix tense do not go together. This is explained if the only source for (4b) is one in which morgen is merged as a matrix clause constituent. The deviant status of (4b) would be mysterious, however, if morgen could be merged in the embedded clause as in (4a), and then be scrambled to its surface posi- 3

4 4 tion. (4b) thus supports the view that scrambling does not affect adverbials - it is restricted to arguments. The scrambling feature is "l-related" (see also Déprez 1989 and Mahajan 1990; cf. Bayer & Kornfilt 1994 for a discussion of A-bar-movement theories of German scrambling); operator features are not involved, because they would not be restricted to arguments. In strict minimalism, the attracting feature of scrambling is therefore a "pure" D- feature - operator features cannot play a role. Let α, β, and γ in (5) be DPs merged in their θ-positions, and let scrambling be triggered by head F. Because of the MLC (II) only the subject α can be attracted by F (the other DPs are asymmetrically c-commanded by α). Thus, Attract α cannot A-move an argument to the left of the subject, and this fails to capture the fact that objects do appear in front of subjects, cf. (6). (5) [ FP Spec [ F F [ vp α [v [ VP β [V γ]]]]]] (6) a. dass der Mann dem Kind das Buch zeigte that the.nom man the.dat child the.acc book showed 'that the man showed the book to the child' b. dass das Buch dem Kind der Mann zeigte c. dass dem Kind der Mann das Buch zeigte d. dass das Buch der Mann dem Kind zeigte Giving up strict minimalism in order to make a movement analysis of free constituent order possible is not the correct reaction to this observation. Clear cases of overt A-movement such as Icelandic Object Shift (7) do not change the order of arguments, as Vikner (1995) points out. Apparently, the predictions of the MLC are borne out for overt movement (see also sect. 4.3). 4

5 5 (7) a. Jón [ C syndi i ] oft [ VP t i Mariú bókina] John sent often Mary books b. Jón syndi Mariú j oft [ VP t j bókina] c. *Jón syndi bokina k oft [ VP Mariu t k ] Suppose nevertheless that [I]-[III] are modified in a way that allows scrambling. Problems with the proper location of the attracting feature f will remain. First, f must potentially be a feature of V (or the light verb v introducing external subjects, see Chomsky 1995:sect. 6), because scrambling can be movement within VP 2 : (8) shows that reordering is possible both in front of and behind adverbs like wohl, which Diesing (1992) claims to mark the VP-boundary. The movement of das Buch in (8b) must be triggered by a feature of v-v, since it has not left VP. (8) a. dass wohl der Mann dem Kind das Buch zeigte that ptc. the.nom man the.dat child the.acc book showed 'that the man presumably showed the book to the child' b. dass wohl der Mann das Buch dem Kind zeigte c. dass das Buch wohl der Mann dem Kind zeigte Similarly, objects can be reordered behind (and in front of) subjects which can be shown to have not moved out of VP/vP by tests such as the availability of an existential reading (9), or the transparency for non-argument extraction (10). (9) a. dass Studenten das Buch dem Kind zeigen that students the book the child show 'that (some) students show the child the book' b. dass Studenten dem Kind das Buch zeigen 5

6 6 (10) a. Was i haben denn damals [t für Studenten] dem Kind das Buch gezeigt? what have ptc. then for students the child the book showed? 'What kind of students showed the book to the child then?' b. Was haben denn damals für Studenten das Buch dem Kind gezeigt? If scrambling is triggered by a verbal feature, the scrambling of phrases to positions outside of vp could be captured as follows: A head H becomes a sublabel of a head K which it has incorporated into, and features of sublabels of K do not differ from features of K in terms of attraction (Chomsky 1995:304). After v/v has incorporated into an F above vp/vp, features of v/v are sublabels of F, and can attract XPs by virtue of this property. VP-internal and VP-external scrambling can thus be triggered by the same feature (cf. also Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou, to appear). This account runs into difficulties with coherent infinitives. An object selected by the complement verb precedes the matrix subject in (11b). The matrix verb wagen has no l-related feature for this object, and cannot have attracted it if scrambling is triggered by an l-related feature. Such a feature f is present on the complement verb helfen. After helfen has become a sublabel of wagen by incorporation, f can attract dem Peter, and place it in front of the matrix subject. However, if excorporation is impossible, (11c) shows that incorporation does not take place until after Spellout (cf. Grewendorf & Sabel 1994). This is too late for licensing overt "long" scrambling by the sublabel-mechanism just discussed. (11) a. dass niemand [ CP dem Peter zu helfen] wagte that nobody the-dat Peter to help dared 'that nobody dared to help Peter' 6

7 7 b. dass dem Peter niemand [ CP t zu helfen] wagte c. [ CP [ CP t i zu helfen] j [ C' [ C wagte] [ IP dem Peter i niemand t j ]]] If covert movement can apply before Spellout (cf. Groat & O'Neill (1996), Roberts (1998), Fanselow & Ćavar (2000), among others), the level ordering difficulty disappears, but the cyclicity problem remains: strong features of H must be checked immediately, that is, before the projection of H is merged with a head K. If a strong feature f of wagen triggers the scrambling of dem Peter, f must be checked before the projection of wagen merges with a further head, i.e., dem Peter could scramble within wagen's projection only. This is clearly not sufficient for an account of (11b). To summarize, the idea that a movement triggered by an l-related feature accounts for free constituent order must be given up if one wants to uphold strict minimalism Scrambling and Operator Features According to Chomsky (1995), an operator feature such as wh may be considered a "subfeature" of D, and if H attracts it, only the closest XP with that subfeature moves. Thus, if scrambling is triggered by an operator subfeature s of D, the problem of how to place an object in front of a subject is solved, and difficulties linked to l-relatedness are overcome, too. The approach has two obvious weaknesses: it is unclear why the operator feature s appears on arguments only (adjuncts do not scramble), and German scrambling is not likely to have A-bar-properties (see Bayer & Kornfilt 1994). Furthermore, it is difficult to give clear semantic content to the alleged operator feature. Constituent order is related to pragmatics, but scrambled phrases have no uniform pragmatic function. Scrambled α often bears a topic function, suggesting that the content of the scrambling feature s might be topichood, as proposed for German e.g., 7

8 8 by Meinunger (1995). However, the preverbal position (in a PF sense) is the unmarked focus position of German, and α may scramble away from it in (12) in order to avoid being in focus, but also to allow β to be in focus (see, e.g., Rosengren 1993). (12) [α... [β t α V]] Often, this implies that α is a topic, but not always. Krifka (1998) argues in detail that focus assignment to the category immediately preceding the verb is derivational. Thus, if there are two independent foci α, β, preverbal α must scramble away after being focus-marked in order to enable β to be preverbal and receive focus thereby. Thus, scrambled α can be focal, too. That the scrambling of α serves the checking of a pragmatically relevant operator feature s of α is thus difficult to maintain. The checking of pragmatic operator feature also fails to explain why pairs of adjuncts obey similar ordering constraints. For arguments, unmarked ("normal") order is always well-formed, but so are serializations in which focal material comes last. The scrambling proposal claims that normal order is base-generated, while other serializations arise by the movement of non-focal/topical arguments. Pairs of adjuncts show a related normal order effect, however. Time before Place is the "normal" order of German (Lenerz 1977). (13a) is fine independent of any particular pragmatic conditions, while (13b) is appropriate only when time is focussed. One cannot explain this by assuming that (13a) is base-generated, while (13b) is an instance of scrambling, because adjuncts do not scramble at all. Whatever the relation between normal and focus-last order may eventually reduce to - it cannot be accounted for in terms of feature checking and positions that can be reached by movement only. (13) a. Er hat heute im Park gearbeitet 8

9 9 he has today in-the park worked 'He has worked in the park today' b. Er hat im Park heute gearbeitet The markedness of a serialization of α relative to β may depend on surface generalizations (see Uszkoreit 1984, Müller 2000a), which one can integrate into models of "interface economy" (Reinhart 1997). Scrambling can then be linked to such surface constraints, but it cannot be due to the checking of features, a position also entertained by Chomsky: it "may be a mistake to integrate them [i.e. rules such as scrambling] within the same framework of principles" (Chomsky 1995:325). In other words, scrambling is not a possible minimalist operation in a strict sense, and whether we wish to postulate such rules nevertheless depends on how well they are motivated. 2. A Refutation of Empirical Arguments for Scrambling Two aspects seem to anchor scrambling deeply into the theory of syntax: Configurational θ-role assignment forces the generation of base structures with fixed order, and word order variation relative to these is constrained by locality conditions reminiscent of islands for movement. We will address these issues in sections 3-4, and refute the other arguments in favor of scrambling in this section Floating Quantifiers Sportiche (1988) argued that floating quantifiers such as all in (14) arise by quantifier stranding in the process of moving NPs. The discontinutity of die Männer... alle 'the men... all' in (15b) should then arise by quantifier stranding, too. In this case, scrambling would be the movement responsible for stranding (cf. Déprez 1989). (14) The men have [t all] arrived 9

10 10 (15) a. dass der Peter die Männer alle eingeladen hatte that the.nom Peter the.acc men all invited had b. dass die Männer der Peter [alle t] eingeladen hatte c. dass die Männer alle der Peter eingeladen hatte 'that Peter had invited all the men' Baltin (1995:229) points out, however, that Sportiche's account does not explain why stranding is impossible for certain trace positions (16a-b), and, more importantly, he stresses that it cannot explain why "the surface distribution of floating quantifiers is identical to the surface distribution of other preverbs, such as ever, which never form constituents with DPs" (Baltin 1995:229), a fact partially illustrated in (17). (16) a. They seemed [t all] to be friendly to us b. *The people were seen [t all] (17) a. For these people all to leave would be inconvenient (ECM) a'. I would hate for these people ever to find out that I was wrong b. *They tried [all to leave] (subject control) b'. *I would hate ever to find out that I was wrong c. I persuaded the men all to resign (object control) c'. Could you persuade him ever to admit that he was wrong d. *He read the books all (VP final) d'. *Did you read the books ever There can be no stranding account for the distribution of ever, and the principles explaining the distribution of ever can be applied to quantifiers (as adjuncts to VP) without reference to stranding and movement (cf. Baltin 1995, Torrego 1996). Thus, 10

11 11 no motivation for the stranding analysis is left. Consequently, there is also no reason for assuming that the pairing of die Männer - alle in (15) is due to movement + stranding. The quantifier floating argument of Déprez (1989) is not conclusive Parasitic Gaps The parasitic gap argument for scrambling, cf. Felix 1985, Bennis & Hoekstra 1984, faces a similar fate, but for different reasons. In (18a), scrambling seems to license a parasitic gap. This might constitute an ideal argument in favor of movement. (18) a. dass er Maria i [ CP ohne e i anzuschauen] t i geküsst hat that he Mary without to look at kissed has 'that he kissed Mary without looking at her' b. *dass er ohne anzuschauen Maria geküsst hat Two observations suggest that the argument concerning (18a) is not correct. First, the construction does not share standard properties of parasitic gaps. Unlike what holds for parasitic gaps (cf. Cinque 1991, Postal 1994), the construction (18a) is possible with non-referential DPs such as so-called inherent reflexive pronouns (19) of verbs like sich kümmern um 'to care for' and sich beschäftigen 'to occupy oneself' (Fanselow 1993) 3. There may also be more than one "gap" in the adjunct clause (20). (19) dass er sich anstatt (sich) um Maria zu kümmern mit Büchern beschäftigte that he REFL instead REFL of Mary to care with books occupied 'that he occupied himself with books instead of caring for Mary' (20) dass er dem Kind das Buch anstatt zu leihen verkaufte that he the.dat child the.acc book instead to lend sold 'that he sold the book to the child, instead of lending it to him' 11

12 12 Second, the properties of (18a) that are incompatible with a parasitic gap analysis also characterize conjunction reduction, as (21) (deletion in inherently reflexive construction) and (22) (more than one phrase deleted) show. (18a) thus does not instantiate a parasitic gap construction. (18a) and (21)-(22) are rather due to forward deletion in (quasi-) coordinate structures, cf. (23). (21) dass er sich [[um Maria kümmert] und [mit Büchern beschäftigt]] that he REFL of Mary cares and with books occupies 'that he takes care of Mary and occupies himself with books' (22) dass er dem Kind das Buch [erst lieh] und [dann verkaufte] that he the child the book first lent and then sold 'that he first lent the book to the child, and then sold it to him' (23) a. dass er [[Maria kennt] [und [Maria liebt]] that he Mary knows and Mary loves 'that he knows and loves Mary' b. dass er [Maria [ohne Maria zu kennen] liebt that he Mary without Mary to know loves 'that he loves Mary without knowing her' The forward-deletion analysis of (18a) replacing the parasitic gap theory and sketched in (23b) presupposes only one apparently innocuous assumption. Wilder (1997) shows that forward deletion of B triggered by an identical A is only restricted by the PF-condition that coordinating conjunctions are the only heads that may overtly intervene between A and B and c-command B (but not A). This is fulfilled in (23a) and holds in (23b), too, if anstatt 'instead' and ohne 'without' behave like coordinating 12

13 13 conjunctions syntactically - the only assumption we need for (18a). There is at least one further respect in which anstatt and ohne behave like coordinating rather than subordinating conjunctions: they combine with the complementizer dass 'that' even in those dialects that do not tolerate violations of the Doubly-Filled-Comp-Filter (24a) - just as und 'and' does (24b), but unlike true prepositional complementizers (24c). (24) a. Es regnet ohne dass es schneit it rains without that it snows 'It rains without snowing' b. Er sagt, dass es regnet und dass es schneit he says that it rains and that it snows c. Es regnet bevor (*dass) es schneit it rains before (that) it snows As required, forward deletion cannot be applied in comparable English structures. (25a-b) are ungrammatical because the two occurrences of Mary are separated by the c-commanding heads knowing and kissed, respectively, which are not conjunctions. (25) a. *because he kissed Mary without knowing Mary b. *He saw Mary and kissed Mary To sum up, (18a) is an instance of forward deletion 4 and therefore does not involve a parasitic gap. No argument for scrambling can be derived from it Freezing Effects When an XP has been scrambled, it is expected to become an island for movement because of the freezing effect resulting for displaced XPs in most accounts of barrierhood; see Diesing 1992 or Meinunger 1995 for this point, and for German data that 13

14 14 allegedly show that scrambled XPs become islands and thus support the movement analysis of free constituent order. The argument is problematic: phrases preceding their unmarked position tend to be referential topics, and Guéron (1981) and subsequent studies have shown that the more referential a phrase is, the less transparent it is for movement. Island effects for scrambled XPs may thus reduce to referentiality rather than to positional barrierhood. The argument is also based on incorrect factual assumptions: examples such as (26) are fine (cf. Haider 1993, Fanselow 1993) - even though the wh-element was extracted from an object preceding a subject is not referential! (26) shows that objects preceding subjects need not even become weak islands. (26) Was i hätte denn [ DP,acc t für Aufsätze] selbst Hubert nicht rezensieren wollen what had PTC [ t for papers] even Hubert not review wanted 'What kind of paper would even Hubert not have wanted to review? Likewise, Beck & Kim (1996) observe that quantifiers intervening between an operator and its trace block wh-movement. In such contexts, wh-phrases can only be extracted from phrases occupying what is a scrambled position in movement accounts, cf. (27a,c), while extraction out of the "base" position is impossible (27b,d). (27) a. Wen hat [t von den Musikern] fast jeder Student kennengelernt who has of the musicians nearly every student met 'Which of the musicians has almost every student met' b. *Wen hat fast jeder Student [t von den Musikern] kennengelernt c. Wen hat Karl [t von den Musikern] zweimal getroffen who has Karl of the musicians twice met 'Which of the musicians has Karl met twice' 14

15 15 d. *Wen hat Karl zweimal [t von den Musikern] getroffen If XPs in derived positions are barriers for movement, (26) - (27) refute the movement analysis of free constituent order. If some moved phrases are transparent, (26) - (27) at least show that there is no island-related argument for scrambling Wh-phrases In-situ According to Fanselow 1988 and Müller & Sternefeld 1993, in situ wh-phrases cannot be ordered freely in German (28a), and the explanation Müller and Sternefeld offer for this presupposes scrambling: (28a) is analyzed as a case of improper movement, because wh-movement must not follow adjunction. However, (28b) illustrates that whobjects can precede subjects when the ban against placing an indefinite to the left of a definite NP is not violated, and Takahashi (1993), Haider (1986), and Wiltschko (1997) derive the absence of superiority effects in free constituent order languages (29) from the availability of intermediate structures such as (30), in which the wh-object precedes the subject before it is moved to the specifier position of CP. (28) a.?*wann hat wem der Mann geholfen when has who.dat the.nom man helped 'when did the man help whom?' b. Wann würde wem nur ein Held helfen when would who.dat only a.nom hero help? 'when would only a hero help whom?' (29) Was hat wer gesagt? what has who said 'who said what' 15

16 16 (30) e hat [was [wer gesagt]] 2.5. Reconstruction An object anaphor can precede (and c-command) its subject antecedent, as exemplified in (31a). This looks like a reconstruction effect relative to a scrambling trace, and might constitute an argument for scrambling. Frey (1993) and Lee & Santorini (1994) observe, however, that the option exemplified in (31a) is restricted to anaphors bound by nominative DPs, as (31b-d) illustrate. Kim & Sternefeld (1997) argue that (31a) is grammatical because of an LF-movement of the nominative DP (in VP before Spellout) to Spec,TP, as shown in (31e). No reference to a scrambling trace is necessary. Therefore, anaphoric binding fails to support scrambling. (31) a. dass [sich [jeder (t) wiedererkannte]] that REFL everybody recognized 'that everybody recognized himself' b. dass ich den Hans sich im Spiegel zeigte that I the.acc Hans REFL in the mirror showed 'that I showed Hans himself in the mirror' c. *dass ich sich den Hans im Spiegel zeigte d. *dass sich ich den Hans im Spiegel zeigte e. dass [ TP jeder i [ VP sich [ VP t i wiedererkannte]]] 2.6. Quantifier Scope Quantifier scope in German involves a multitude of factors that cannot be discussed here, cf. Pafel 1998 and Fischer 2000, but one aspect should be considered since it has figured in the discussion of scrambling. When linked to an intonation typical of 16

17 17 structures with clause-internal topicalization, clauses are generally scope-ambiguous (see Krifka 1998). In the absence of such an intonation, a difference between clauses with unmarked and scrambled order can be observed, however: in the former, quantifier scope corresponds to surface c-command (32a), while the latter are scopeambiguous (32b), as Frey (1993) argues. (32) a. dass jeder Mann mindestens eine Frau kennt that every.nom man at least one.acc woman knows 'that nearly every man knows at least one woman' only: b. dass mindestens eine Frau fast jeder Mann (t) kennt both and If α takes scope over β if α c-commands a position in the chain of β, as Aoun & Li (1989) have argued, the ambiguity of (32b) seems to arise because the subject both is c-commanded by the object and c-commands a trace of the object (see Frey 1993, and also den Dikken 1996 for a related proposal) - but this reasoning presupposes that object-subject order arises by movement. Scrambling affecting α and β without changing their relative order does not fit into this picture, however. With respect to α and β, such structures involving the abstract representation (33) turn out to be unambiguous, in contrast to what Frey's proposal predicts because of the presence of scrambling traces. (33) α [... β [... t α [...t β...]]] Thus, the dative and the accusative object precede the subject in (34) while they are serialized in normal order relative to each other, and the only grammatical scope option is. Similarly, neither (35a) nor (35b) is scope ambiguous. In scrambling theories, the objects would occupy base positions in (35a), while both objects would 17

18 18 have been scrambled in front of the adjunct clause in (35b), leaving traces thereby. (34) dass jedem Kind mindestens ein Buch nur Hans vorlas that each.dat child at least one.acc book only Hans read 'that only Hans read at least one book to nearly every child' (35) a. dass er einer Frau jeden Mann vorstellte that he a.dat woman every.acc man introduced only: b. dass er einer Frau jeden Mann ohne e e beschrieben zu haben vorstellte that he a woman every man without described to have introduced 'that he introduced every man to some woman (without describing her to him)' It is therefore not correct that α can take scope over β if α c-commands β or a scrambling-trace of β. Rather, without the intonation discussed in Krifka 1998, ambiguities arise only if the actual serialization of α and β differs from their "normal" order, that is, ambiguities do not exist in all contexts in which there would be a scrambling trace. Scope facts in structures not involving special intonations thus do not support scrambling - they just show the relevance of normal order, in addition to actual order. Furthermore, if chain-relative scope theories such as Aoun & Li 1989 are correct, scope facts in (33) constitute a serious problem for scrambling accounts Preliminary Conclusions None of the standard pro-scrambling arguments considered above turned out to be tenable. At least from this perspective, scrambling is not supported, and recall that it fits badly into restrictive theories of grammar such as strict Minimalism. Before conclusions can be drawn, we have to show, however, that abandoning scrambling does not make the formulation of a proper theory of θ-role assignment impossible. We need 18

19 19 to explain why different serializations of the arguments in a clause are thematically identical. This will be taken up in the next section. 3. Free Constituent Order 3.1. θ-role Assignment and Feature Checking The Projection Principle of Chomsky 1981 had required that arguments receive θ- roles as soon they are merged (i.e., at D-structure in GB-theory), but it was abandoned on empirical grounds in Chomsky In terms of "virtual conceptual necessity", θ- roles need not be assigned before LF, and without compelling evidence, no further requirements should be imposed. We therefore take it for granted that θ-roles need not be assigned before LF, see also Boškovič & Takahashi (1998) and Saito (2000). θ-role assignment is executed in a configurational way in Chomsky 1981, 1995, an option not open to us. Non-configurational approaches to theta-marking such as Haider 1986, Farmer 1984, or Neeleman 1994 relate θ-role assignment to Case. Giving Case a special status is not really justified, so we will assume a principle like [IV]. [IV] θ-roles are linked to a formal feature f that a verb specifies for its arguments, and they are "assigned" in the process of f-feature checking. F is one of the independently motivated formal features, and not meant to be a "θfeature" (proposed in Boškovič & Takahashi 1998). Verbs possess a thematic grid specifying their arguments. In a non-exceptional case, formal selectional features (responsible for "canonical structural representations" (CSR), cf. Grimshaw 1979 and Chomsky 1986), are added to the set of formal features of the verb (FF[V]) when it is selected for Merger. Thus, for a propositional theme, a C- or D-feature corresponding to CP- or DP-complement would be added. For irregular cases, such features are al- 19

20 20 ready present in the lexical entry. At least for internal arguments, Case features may also be added, the same holds for pertinent ϕ-features. At the present moment, we need not be concerned with whether one of these features f has a "privileged" link to θ-roles, rendering f "interpretable"- as long as there is at least one [-interpretable] feature present that guarantees that the feature checking algorithm of Chomsky 1995 is triggered. Recall that a feature f of C is checked when C attracts a category D sharing f. C can attract f only if f is not interpretable with respect to C, but other features g, h of C ("free riders") may be checked by corresponding features of D irrespective of interpretability, as long as the attracting feature f is not interpretable. The assignment of θ-roles in the sense of [IV] can thus be linked to normal feature checking Deriving Free Constituent Order in German The application of the Merge operation is not constrained by any grammatical principle, so the order in which Merge applies (at the root of a tree) is free. Different serializations can be generated directly by Merge. The only issue is whether θ-roles can be assigned properly in such a constellation. Consider (36) in this respect. (36) [[ vp [ VP.. [V {{D, accusative, ϕ-2}{d, dative, ϕ-3}...]] v {D,ϕ-1} ] Tense] The lexical verb V specifies Case, ϕ- and categorial features for its internal arguments, and the external θ-role is linked to ϕ-features and a D-feature of a light verb v. For θ-assignment, these l-related features must be checked by an argument. L-related features are checked covertly in German. Subjects can always stay in VP, cf. (9)- (10), and there is no convincing evidence for subject expletives (Haider 1993). Koopman (1995) shows that V does not move to T before LF in Dutch and German. Thus, German Tense has neither a strong D-feature nor a strong V-feature. This implies that A- 20

21 21 movement applies covertly. The covert attraction of a feature f pied-pipes the other features in the set of formal features to which f belongs (but nothing else). Consider now the abstract LF-representation (37) for a German clause. At LF, FF(V) and FF(v) incorporate into T - so they c-command all DP arguments α, β and γ in VP. The set of formal features which the verb specifies for the direct object consists of a D-feature, ϕ-features, and accusative Case. Each of these can attract features of a DP, with the others being checked because FF(DP) is pied-piped. (37) Tense vp Tense VP v v Tense{d,nom} α V V{ϕ-2,acc,d},{ϕ3-,dat,d} v{ϕ1,d} β V γ V If V's D-feature attracts, the MLC implies that the DP closest to V, viz. α, moves. This may lead to a legitimate (Chomsky 1995:309) derivation, depending on whether α also bears accusative Case. More interesting is the situation in which V's Case feature attracts, giving D- and ϕ-features a free ride. Attraction presupposes the establishment of a checking relation, which is established only if the interacting features match (Chomsky 1995:310). In the spirit of Ferguson & Groat (1994), we may conclude that the MLC only requires that V attracts the closest DP with a matching Case, irrespective of whether DPs bearing different Cases intervene. Consequently, the formal features which for example V specifies for the accusative object, including D- and ϕ- features, are checked by the closest accusative DP, as required. In other words, the 21

22 22 order in which DPs appear relative to each other is irrelevant for the success of a derivation if Case (rather than D) is the attracting feature, and order is irrelevant for θ- marking if [IV] holds, i.e., if θ-roles are assigned when features inserted by CSR-theory are checked. We have thus answered the question of how θ-roles are assigned in a free constituent order system - by Case attraction and a MLC sensitive to matching Case. If different heads H and K check the formal features of α and β, respectively, it follows that α can be merged with a K-projection and ordered freely with respect to β if H incorporates into K at some level, cf. also below. In this respect, our approach resembles theories in which scrambling is Case movement, and the factor allowing free order is the formation of complex heads checking different Cases, cf. Miyagawa Furthermore, the feature complexes FF(DP) adjoined to V, v, or T at LF are formally identical with clitics, so there is also a connection to approaches relating scrambling to clitic left dislocation (Sportiche 1998, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998). The similarity exists only if our approach is executed in terms of literal feature movement, and not if feature movement is replaced by feature agreement in the sense of Chomsky So-called Long Scrambling and Remnant Movement The system developed above also deals successfully with what Grewendorf & Sabel (1994) call "long scrambling", that is, the extended reordering possibility of coherent infinitives, see (11) and (38). In contrast to standard θ-theory, [IV] is compatible with (or rather, implies) the establishment of θ-relations by movement. If θ-marking is mediated by feature checking, an argument of X need not always merge in XP. A θ-role 22

23 23 is assigned to α by X if X and α check relevant features at some point. Thus, the θ- marking domain of a verb V 1, is, for example, extended when it incorporates into V 2. (38) a. dass niemand [ CP PRO den Peter zur Party einzuladen] wagte that nobody the Peter to-the party to invite dared 'that nobody dared to invite Peter to the party' b. dass [den Peter [niemand [[ CP zur Party einzuladen] wagte]]] c. dass [den Peter [niemand [[ CP zur Party t i ][einzuladen i wagte]]]] In (38), den Peter is an argument of einzuladen. This DP has been merged in the complement CP in (38a), and θ-checking proceeds unspectacularly by LF-Case attraction. If den Peter is merged in the matrix clause, as in (38b) (it precedes the matrix subject), a surface string arises that corresponds to effects of "long" scrambling. How are θ-roles assigned in (38b)? At LF, the lower verb einzuladen has incorporated into the matrix verb wagen 'dare' (38c), and is then pied-piped to matrix T. Recall that the incorporation of the complement verb is a crucial property of this construction. After incorporation and movement to T, the formal features of einzuladen are a sublabel of matrix-t and c-command den Peter, cf. (39). In (39), the Case feature of einzuladen can thus attract a matching feature of a DP merged in the matrix clause, so that the required θ-relation with den Peter will be established. LF-incorporation is correctly predicted to be necessary for the grammaticality of (38b). (39) [ TP [ vp den Peter niemand...][ Tense [[FF(einzuladen)] FF(wagen)] Tense]] German "long scrambling" thus involves LF-incorporation of an embedded V into the matrix V*, which allows matrix XPs to pick up θ-roles assigned by the V. See Sect. 4 for a discussion of why this is impossible in English. Our analysis also ex- 23

24 24 plains why adjuncts merged in the main clause are never interpreted as modifying a complement verb (Section 1.1.): for adjuncts, the complement V specifies no formal features that V could check with a matrix-adjunct after incorporation. We account for "remnant topicalization" facts (cf. den Besten & Webelhuth 1987, Müller 1998) as in (40) in a similar way without recourse to scrambling (see Fanselow 2000b for empirical arguments against remnant movement in (40)). (40) involves the pre-topicalization structure (41), with VP-1 projected from geben 'give', and VP-2 from dürfen 'may' (see also Fanselow 1993, Frey & Tappe 1993 for this proposal). (40) [ CP [ VP-1 Peter geben] [[ C hättest] [ TP du das Buch nicht t VP-1 dürfen]]] Peter give had you the book not may 'You should not have given the book to Peter' (41) du [ VP-2 das Buch [ VP-1 Peter geben] nicht dürfen] hättest In (41), das Buch, the direct object of geben, merges in VP-2 (projected from dürfen) rather than in VP-1 (projected from geben). VP-1 is the maximal projection of geben, and can therefore move to Spec,CP, as it does in (40). VP-1 may, however, reconstruct to its pre-movement position in (41) after Spellout, and we follow Grewendorf & Sabel (1994) in the assumption that its head geben can then incorporate into c- commanding dürfen. The DP das Buch is consequently accessible to the ϕ- and Case features of geben, because these have become part of a sublabel of [[geben] dürfen]]. This sublabel attracts the Case feature of das Buch, and the other features of the DP are checked as free riders, which implies the required θ-assignment by geben to DP. (40) thus illustrates the same point as (38): an argument α of Σ can be merged in a projection X dominating Σ as long as Σ incorporates into the head H of X at LF, so 24

25 25 that FF(Σ) is a sublabel of H, and can attract FF(α), which implies θ-assignment "Scrambling" out of PPs and NPs Free serialization is not confined to co-arguments. Relative to a "normal" order Y... α... β, β can also be placed into position Y if Y is not separated from the normal position of β by a movement barrier. This observation was one of the crucial arguments for scrambling (see Fanselow 1988, Müller 2000a), but it can be derived in our approach as well, by the mechanism discussed in 3.3. To see how, consider (42). Only complements are transparent for movement. Thus, α can move to γ in (42) only if YP is a complement of X. Theories of barrierhood as proposed in Müller & Sternefeld 1993 and Müller 1998 (inspired by Baker 1988) imply that YP is transparent only if Y also incorporates into X 7. This incorporation is a necessary condition for movement (Scrambling) from α to γ. But after Y has incorporated into X, the features of Y, including those related to arguments, form a sublabel of X, so that a category merged in γ can pick up a θ-role assigned by Y. Thus, for arguments, the predictions of movement approaches and of our theory concerning the scope of the free constituent order are identical, as required. (42) [ XP... γ... [ YP... Y... α... ]...X...] Let us consider two concrete example for this. (43a) exemplifies the fact (van Riemsdijk 1978) that "R-pronouns" like da 'it' can be separated from the PP they belong to. (43a) is the only structure that would have to be analysed as scrambling out of PP, and it is plausible that (43a) depends on LF-incorporation of P into V, because P and V must be adjacent. (43) a. dass ich da i nicht [(t i ) von] sprechen will 25

26 26 that I it not of talk want 'that I do not want to talk about that' b. [ CP Da i [ Comp will] [ TP ich nicht t i von sprechen]] After incorporation, FF(P) c-command all DPs merged in VP, because FF(P) is a sublabel of V. Therefore, FF(P) can check formal features of DPs that have merged in VP rather than PP. In other words, such DPs can be linked thematically and formally to P despite the fact that they have not been merged in PP. Da need not have moved out of PP in (43a), if [IV] holds. Consequently, there is also no need for a stranding analysis of topicalization data such as (43b), since the preposed of da can originate in a position merged with V. One can thus confine P-stranding, i.e., movement of DP out of PP (which need not involve P-incorporation), to VO-languages, a welcome result 8. The same reasoning applies to thematic complements of object nouns that precede that object, as in (44), if Müller (1995) is correct in assuming that (44) involves LFincorporation of N into V. (44) dass er [über Polen] nie [ein Buch] gelesen hatte that he about Poland never a book read had 'that he had never read a book about Poland' According to Müller (1995), the PP über Polen has been scrambled out of the object, with NPs being transparent for movement only if their head has incorporated into V at LF. By incorporation, the selectional features F of N become sublabels of V, so that DPs merged in VP can be checked by F. Thus, a formal and thematic link to N can be established without scrambling- the PP can merge in VP directly. Since incorporation is confined to heads of complements, we predict that subjects and indirect 26

27 27 objects are islands 9 in German both for phrasal movement (cf. Fanselow 1987, Müller 1995), and for the indirect linking of θ-roles that has been interpreted as scrambling. The present approach is one of very few non-configurational approaches to syntax which can predict such asymmetries - undoubtedly an important achievement Quantifier Scope Revisited Let us conclude this analysis of German free constituent order with a few remarks concerning scope. Recall that α can take scope over β if α c-commands β either in the actual composition of a clause, or would do so in "normal" order. External arguments precede and c-command internal arguments in normal order, and the normal order of internal arguments is verb-dependent, presumably reflecting thematic hierarchies (see Haider 1993, Meinunger 1995, Müller 2000a, and Fanselow 2000c for a discussion). In a standard transitive construction, (45b) is thus ambiguous while (45a) is not. (45) a. DP-NOM... DP-ACC b. DP-ACC... DP-ACC Chomsky (1995:377) proposes a quantificational [quant] feature. The scope of DPs can be taken to be a function of the c-command relations between the [quant] features, or, rather, between the categories they belong to. The covert attraction of FF (DP) to the verbal/tense head K in (46) that we assume for θ-role checking strands semantic [quant] features 10, which remain with the full DPs. If scope is computed relative to these features, DP takes scope over DP* in (46). This corresponds to one of the scope generalizations: surface c-command can correspond to semantic scope. (46) [...[DP...[DP*...]]] K For the second scope option, the [quant] features of the DPs must be displaced. The 27

28 28 most "conservative" proposal (relative to Chomsky 1995) is the assumption that [quant] can not only be used as a semantic feature, but also as an interpretable formal feature, in which case [quant] will be pied-piped with FF(DP) when K covertly attracts a feature of DP in (46). A similar effect is obtained in the system proposed by Pesetsky (2000), who allows featural and phrasal movement in the covert component - the former strands quantificational information, the latter pied-pipes it. If normal order reflects the hierarchy of the arguments (see above), and therefore the hierarchy among the feature complexes that check the DPs, scope assignment reflecting normal order is derived if the c-command relations among the target positions of LF movement (FF(DPa) and FF(DPb) in (47)) correspond to the hierarchies of feature complexes (Ha and Hb) that trigger LF-movement. (47) [FF(DPa)... [FF(DPb) [ Ha [Hb Ha]]]] If the relevant LF-movement would always be a substitution into a specifier position, the correspondence of the hierarchies among target positions of movement and the ones among the triggering feature complexes would be straighforward. Recall, however, that we follow Chomsky (1995) in assuming that sublabels of a head H can attract, so that H allows multiple specifiers and adjunction sites. The hierarchy among these is, as such, free, so that we need a principle such as [V] to guarantee that FF(DPa) c-commands FF(DPb) in (47) only if Ha c-commands Hb. [V] If H attracting h c-commands K attracting k, then the target position of h c-commands 11 the target position of k. If [V] holds 12 (perhaps restricted to heads which are part the same phase), scope corresponding to normal serialization is accounted for. 28

29 Residual Issues That DPs merged with H can pick up θ-roles of a V incorporated into H is welcome for H=V and H=T, but apparently not for H=C. If Chomsky (1995:312) is correct, only expletives check features by Merge. Thus, an argument α merged in Spec,CP cannot check Case or ϕ-features of a V moved to C, as required. α could, however, check features of V in C if α moves to Spec,CP, that is, if α is attracted by an operator feature 13. L-related and operator features would be checked in the same position, which would be an A- and an A-bar-position. If this is not a well-formed LF-object 14, the assignment of θ-roles in Spec,CP is excluded. In German (perhaps not in Japanese, cf. Boškovič & Takahashi 1998), scrambling is always upward movement. In our system, this ban on "lowering" follows if α in (48) cannot pick up a θ-role assigned by V when FF(α) moves to V at LF. (48)... [ ZP... α... ]...V... For the attraction of FF(α) in (48) by V to be possible, ZP must be transparent for movement, that is, ZP must be a complement of V (or a complement in a complement of V). α is therefore part of an argument of V. Although more might be said, let us simply assume that [VI] holds at the interface. [VI] blocks the configuration in (48) directly, because both α and ZP are arguments of V in the case that must be ruled out. [VI] Arguments α, β of predicate P must be distinct, i.e., if α and β are arguments of P, then α cannot dominate β. 4. Fixed Constituent Order 4.1. English: Strong D-features for Subjects and Objects Let us turn to English and begin with subjects. Recall that the subject θ-role is linked 29

30 30 to ϕ- or D-features of the light verb v, and the object θ-role to features of V. T has a strong D-feature in English, so by the MLC [II], only α, the closest XP with a D-feature, can (and must) move to Spec-1 in (49), since T attracts the closest DP. α furthermore must be nominative, because the derivation crashes otherwise. α is Spec,vP, so it bears the subject θ-role, see below. The strict connection between Spec, TP and the subject θ-role is thus a consequence of the strong D-feature of T. (49) [ TP Spec-1 T [ vp α [v [ VP V β]]]] Some clarifications are necessary. Above, we left it open which of the uninterpretable features is an attractor. If there are no restrictions on the choice of attractors in the overt component, the Case-feature of T could be an attractor in English, too. If β rather than α bears nominative Case in (49), β would be attracted by T. The strong D- feature of T would then be checked by the D-feature of β. Any DP could thus move to Spec,TP in English, an undesirable result. We exclude such derivations by restricting overt attraction to strong features- a harmless, natural, and helpful assumption. Only expletives can check features by being merged in some postion. Therefore, α must receive its thematic role by being attracted to Spec, TP in (49). For this to be possible, v must be a sublabel of T at the point when α is attracted. This works smoothly in English (in which the phonetic material of the verb does not appear in T after all) if we follow Roberts (1998) in assuming that covert movement of verb features to T already applies in the overt component 15. This is motivated on independent grounds, as Roberts shows. Note that the category FF[v], which is thus incorporated into T before a DP moves to Spec,TP, contains all formal features of v, hence also the selectional ones. Therefore, the checking process equivalent to θ-assignment can ap- 30

31 31 ply. If DP is merged in Spec,T, it cannot, however, pick up a θ-role there, because only expletives check feature by merging. Let us now turn to objects. As in German, the selectional features for objects must be part of the verbal lexical entry. The obligatory adjacency of the verb and the object as illustrated in (50) makes a more complex description necessary, however. (50) a. He saw Mary on Tuesday b. *He [saw [often [t Mary]]] If the relation between V and its object would be established at LF, there would be no way of excluding (50b). Lacking a Case feature, often cannot block attraction of FF(Mary) by the Case feature of saw at LF. Hence, (50b) should be grammatical, which it is not. That objects follow V immediately in English verb phrases suggests that overt movement is involved, that is, it suggests that there is overt object raising in English, as argued by Pesetsky (1989), Johnson (1991), among many others 16. (51) [V [ FP DP 1 [F... ]] In other words, the object moves to the specifier position of some F, and the verb moves to some head selecting FP. Whether F can be equated with Johnson's µ, with an AGR node for objects, a light verb v, or some other category, is of little importance for the present discussion 17, as long as two conditions are fulfilled: (a) F possesses a strong D feature that attracts the object, and (b) V moves through F, so that the selectional features corresponding to the object argument are checked when F attracts the object while V is a sublabel of F. In English passives, underlying objects must be generated in VP (and not in the subject position), since passivization eliminates Case-features, but not the strong D- 31

32 32 feature of F, which must be checked before FP combines with further heads. The object must therefore move to a position in which the D-feature of V is checked (52a,d), before it can go to Spec,TP. Similarly, the single argument of unaccusative verbs must be merged in VP 18. (52) a. There has been a moose shot t b. *There has been shot a moose c. A moose has been shot t d. There has been a man considered t sick e. *There has been considered a man sick In double object constructions, the order of the objects is fixed (53). I will not attempt an analysis of the construction here. For our purposes, a brief remark concerning a possible source of invariant order may suffice. The versions of the MLC proposed by Richards (1997) and Müller (2000b) imply crossing movement when a single head attracts two specifiers. If F checks the strong D-feature twice in (53), its two specifiers will appear in the order in which they were arranged in the category selected by F. What needs to be guaranteed is the proper alignment of θ-roles. The difference between Goal and Theme is encoded in the hierarchy of the selectional features. The principle [V] introduced above that requires that the hierarchy of checking feature complexes should correspond to the hierarchy of the XPs checked is therefore relevant again. Recall that the selectional features of the verb for the two arguments are checked only when V has become a sublabel of F. (53) He [gave [ FP Mary a book [F...]]] / *He gave a book Mary Constructions similar to German restructuring (54) and remnant VP movement 32

33 33 (55) are ungrammatical in English and other fixed order languages. (54) is a counterpart to a German coherent infinitive, in which an object of the complement has been merged in the matrix clause. The construction is grammatical in German because the complement verb raises covertly into the matrix clause, and checks its selectional features with a DP that was merged there. The construction cannot arise in English because there is a strong D-feature present in [V [ FP... F...]] in embedded clauses, too, and this strong feature must be checked by V's object before FP merges with further categories, that is, before there is a chance for overt or covert raising of F or V. Consequently, the object of V must always be merged within FP in English. (54) *that I dare him PRO to kiss Counterparts to German "remnant movement" constructions such as (55a) cannot arise in English either. Kissed has to move across F in overt syntax, so what is preposed in (55a) has to be [kissed [ FP F...]]. F possesses a strong D feature for the object, which is unchecked in (55a), so the derivation crashes. LF-reconstruction cannot help because the strength of the D-feature of F requires that the checking relation be established before FP merges with any other category. (55) a. *Kissed i though he might have [t i Mary] b. [t Kissed Mary] though he i might have... c. [t Caught t spying] though they i were (55b-c) are compatible with this approach, however, because it does not rule out remnant movement (VP-preposing following NP-movement of the subject) as such - it just denies that there is remnant movement when there is no movement at all A Typology of Constituent Order 33

34 34 Fixed order of subjects and objects in English is the result of strong D-features attracting these categories overtly. When there are no strong features attracting the arguments (as in German), free constituent order arises. The parametrization of the strength of selectional D-features predicts at least four language types. If the head F discussed in the preceding section has a strong D feature while the D-feature of T is weak, VSO order arises (as in Chomsky 1995) when V moves to T across F: the object is the specifier of FP while the subject remains in Spec,vP in the overt component. If V does not move, SVO order arises, but the subject is not in Spec,IP. This is characteristic of Chinese (cf. Aoun & Li 1989). If there is a strong D-feature for the subject but not for the objects, formal features of V corresponding to the object-θ-role can be checked by LF-Case attraction. Consequently, V need not be adjacent to an object, because intervening non-case-bearing XPs are ignored by Case-attraction. This is true for French (56) and Italian. One also expects that objects with different Cases may be arranged in any order, because DPs with non-matching Case k are skipped in the attraction of Case k'. Arguably, this is also true in Italian and French, where, as (57-58) show (=(20a, 22, 43b,d) of Belletti & Shlonsky 1995) 19 ne/en-cliticization is possible out of objects irrespective of whether they precede or follow a PP or an indirect object. If ne/ en-cliticization is sensitive to base-generation, (57) - (58) fall in line with our theory. (56) Jean embrasse souvent Marie John kisses often Mary (57) a. Ne ho dato uno t a Gianni NE have given one to Gianni 34

35 35 'I have given one of these to Gianni' b. Ne ho dato a Gianni uno t che mi avevano consigliato la settimana scorsa NE have given to Gianni one that me have recommended the week last 'I have given one of those to Gianni which they have recommended me last week' (58) a. Ils en ont donné un a Jean they EN have given one to John (=b) b. Ils en ont donné a Jean un t qu'on avait conseillé a l'université they EN have given to John one that-one has recommended to the university Icelandic has an elaborate Case system, but constituent order is fairly fixed, a property that reduces to strong D-features for subjects and objects. Does Icelandic Object Shift pose problems? Collins & Thráinsson (1996:411) observe that Object Shift constructions such as (59) (=their (31)) raise the question of why sentential adverbs such as líklega can appear adjoined to a verbal projection. They assume that "TP-level adverbs [...] in Icelandic can be adjoined to any XP whose head X is in the checking domain of T before Spellout" (p.411). Essentially, this condition is fulfilled only if V moves to T before Spellout. If we generalize this assumption to others adverbs (e.g. to oft 'often'), it is hard to see why structures such as (60a) or (7) argue for Object-Shift: Icelandic allows unusual attachment sites for adverbs and negation in V-movement contexts, as Collins & Thráinsson (1996) show, so (60a) may involve an exceptional VP-adjunction of negation (61a) rather than object movement. If there is no Object Shift, the fact that indirect and direct objects always appear in fixed order in Icelandic, a property that neither Vikner (1995) nor Collins & Thráinsson (1996) capture without additional assumptions, comes for free. 35

36 36 (59)?Ég gaf Maríu Þetta símanúmer líklega upp I gave Mary this phone number probably up 'I probably gave Mary this phone number' (60) a. Jón las bækunar ekki John read the books not 'John did not read the books' b. Jón las ekki bækunar (61) a. las [ VP bækunar [ VP ekki [ VP t V t NP ]]] b. las ekki [ VP bækunar [ VP t V t NP ]]] 4.3. Distinctness of Attracting Features The strength of D-features is the primary factor governing the order of DPs. The role played by the distinctness 20 of Case features is less clear. When the position of objects relative to PPs or adverbs is free (as in Dutch), the D-feature of F for objects cannot be strong. It is tempting to relate the fixed position of objects relative to each other (which one also finds in Dutch, see (62), disregarding effects of focus movement, cf., e.g., Neeleman 1994:395) to the assumption that Dutch specifies one type of object Case only. When a single head attracts more than one XP on the basis of a single feature (as in multiple wh-movement), the XPs need to be arranged in a fixed order (cf. Richards 1997, Müller 2000b for MLC-related accounts of this phenomenon). (62) a. dat Jan Marie de boeken niet geeft that Jan Marie the books not gives b. *dat Jan de boeken Marie niet geeft 'that Jan gave Mary the books' 36

37 37 The Case identity of an accusative object with the accusative subject in German ECM-complements does not prevent order from being free, see (63a-b), because the two instances of accusative Case are checked by different heads. In one of the derivations leading to (63a), das Lied merges with singen, while keinen merges in the matrix clause. When singen attracts accusative after it has moved to a position c-commanding das Lied but before incorporating into liess, it enters a checking relation with das Lied, as required. When both DPs merge in the complement, and when singen checks accusative after moving to a head (e.g., T in the complement) c-commanding both arguments -but before it incorporates into liess- singen attracts the accusative feature of the higher of the two DPs, as required for (63b). After the deletion of the accusative feature of the preposed object following checking, keinen becomes accessible to Case checking by liess. The absence of strong l-related features and the deletability of Case (in contrast to a D-feature on DP) are crucial ingredients of this derivation. (63) a. dass Hans [keinen [[das Lied singen] liess]] that Hans nobody the song sing let 'that Hans did not make anybody sing the song' b. dass Hans [das Lied [keinen singen]] liess c. dass dies Lied niemand den Peter singen hörte that this.acc song nobody.nom the.acc Peter sing heard 'that nobody heard Peter sing this song' Whether an object of the complement clause can also be placed easily in front of the matrix subject, or whether examples such as (63c) are due to clause-internal topi- 37

38 38 calization is a complex issue that we cannot resolve here (see Fanselow 1988: , Haider 1993: ). 5. Thematic Theory 5.1. The Role of φ-features θ-linking is mediated by Case or D-feature checking in the present approach. According to Jelinek (1984) and Baker (1995), agreement morphemes of V bear the θ- roles in polysynthetic languages, with noun phrases serving as thematic adjuncts. If both views are correct for the languages they have been developed for, we need a unified theory with appropriate parameters. In the spirit of Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp 1981), let us assume that θ-roles correspond to variables in the semantic representation of a predicate. Thus, sing is represented as sing (x). For an interpretation of John sings, we need to equate the interpretation of John with this variable. This can be represented as for x=john, sing (x). Let us also assume that the presence of variables at the interface is governed by [VII]. [VII] At LF, complete sets of ϕ-features correspond to semantic variables. For pronouns, [VII] is correct if expletives lack at least one ϕ-feature. Other DPs with complete ϕ-features also correspond to variables: the translation of John may look like for x, x=john. Nothing would change if there would be an additional interpretation of DPs as semantic constants. Verbs specify formal features including ϕ-features for their arguments. [VII] implies that ϕ-features present on verbs need not always be [-interpretable]. If they are retained at LF, they translate into variables corresponding to argument places. This is correct for two sets of ϕ-features for sees, but wrong for (subject-) agreement features of seems. The system is nevertheless tenable 38

39 39 if ϕ-features may or may not be deleted after checking. If a semantically relevant set of ϕ-features (of which there must be two for John sees Mary) is deleted, the LF specifies one argument place only for see, which results in gibberish because sees expresses a two-place relation. Retaining the semantically irrelevant ϕ-features of seems also yields an uninterpretable semantic representation, because seems that ϕ cannot be predicated of an entity. In a correct derivation for John loves Mary, the verbal ϕ-features are kept (64a), and (64a) is interpreted as (64b). If (64b) reduces to (64c), a correct semantic representation arises. (64) a. John ϕ-1 v ϕ-2 loves ϕ-3 Mary ϕ-4 b. For x=john, for y=mary, z loves w c. For x=john, for y=mary, x loves y Letting ϕ-features be potentially interpretable on verbs/predicates has no unwanted consequences for the computational system. Interpretable ϕ-features need not be checked, so they do not attract. In strict Minimalism, overt movement is never triggered by ϕ-features (they are not categorial), so our modification does not change anything in this respect. Covert attraction checking ϕ-features is necessary for multiple subject-predicate agreement, as a reviewer points out, but recall that ϕ-features can always be free riders in an attraction process affecting primarily, e.g., a (weak) D-feature. Thus, there is little compelling evidence for covert attraction by ϕ-features Polysynthetic Languages Since the ϕ-features of predicates are potentially interpretable, LFs in which the variables which one may construct from these by [VII] are not linked to a DP are predicted to be well-formed- and they seem to be so in languages such as Warlpiri or Mohawk 39

40 40 (Jelinek 1984, Baker 1995). A Mohawk verb like ya-núhwe'-s "masc-sg-subj/2 nd sg object-like-habitual" (Baker 1995:31) is represented as "x [like y]" at LF. This representation is well-formed (no unchecked features are left), and makes sense if values can be assigned to the variables (or constants, see above). Where noun phrases enter the structure, they are adjuncts, and linked to variables in the semantic representation of V by "compatibility" rules. These can, but need not, lead to interpretations resembling θ-role assignment - note the systematic ambiguitity of noun phrases exemplified in (65), and the surprising instrumental interpretation for the absolutive subject adjunct in (66) (Warlpiri examples, taken from Hale 1981:32,39,40): (65) ngarrka ka-rna nya-nyi man-abs pres-1subj see-nonpast 'I see the/a man', 'I see him as a man', 'I see him, and he is a man' (66) rdaka kapi-rna-rla yarnka-mi jurru-ku hand fut-1subj grab-nonpast head-dat 'I will grab it by the head with my hand" Such models are not likely to correctly capture German, because there are criteria (such as the transparency of a category for wh-movement) which show that noun phrases can be complements in German. German is not a polysynthetic language Uninterpretable Features Baker (1995:84) argues that polysynthetic languages differ from languages like English or German in the absence of Case marking in the former. When Case is one of the features corresponding to arguments (as in German and English), it must be eliminated before LF since it is uninterpretable. The same is true for D-features of V. In the 40

41 41 process of checking/eliminating uninterpretable Case/D-features, ϕ-features are checked as free riders. If the checking of ϕ-features implies the identification of the variables corresponding to them (see [VIII]), that is, if the transition from (64b) to (64c) is made, a semantic structure arises that corresponds to θ-assignment. [VIII] If FF(x) and FF(y) are in a checking relation for ϕ-features, they correspond to identical variables. θ-role assignment thus takes place only if the verb specifies [-interpretable] features for its arguments, so that interpretable ϕ-features can be checked as free riders. If V does not do so, the polysynthetic type of noun phrase functions arises. Just as in Baker's (1995) system, the parameter is whether [-interpretable] features for the arguments are checked by V/T. If they are, ϕ-features will be checked as free riders - it is the presence of [-interpretable] features such as D or Case that drives the attraction of FF(DP). Formally driven operations imply the checking of ϕ-features, and thereby the identification of variables, which is equivalent to θ-role assignment. At least from this perspective, we can eliminate θ-theory. It has been replaced by [VIII]. Our modification also answers a question left open in the minimalist program: why does the lexicon specify features such as Case or selectional features such as D? They are not interpretable, so it appears as if language is imperfect and inelegant in this respect: the lexicon introduces features which are obligatorily erased, and serve no function. In our system, this is different. Case and selectional D drive the identification of ϕ-features. Without Case or D-features, θ-roles could not be assigned/checked. Case is also a traffic rule deciding which DP gets which θ-role. Language is thus perfect in that respect as well. It furthermore becomes clear why languages have, essentially, two strat- 41

42 42 egies for identifying arguments (unless they opt for the polysynthetic option): position and Case. There are two [-interpretable] features offered by the computational component, Case and selectional ones, which trigger the attraction of FF(DP), giving ϕ- features a free ride. The MLC implies that strong D-feature attraction is position sensitive, whereas Case-attraction is not Some Standard Properties of θ-theory θ-roles correspond to sets of ϕ-features among the formal features which a predicate P specifies for an argument, FF a (P). For polysynthetic languages, one cannot maintain that θ-roles must be assigned, but if [-interpretable] features belong to FF a (P), [i] holds, as can be seen easily. [i] Each θ-role of predicate P is assigned If a [-interpretable] feature in FF a (P) is not checked, the derivation crashes. If such a feature is attracted, the interpretable features of FF a (P) will be checked as free riders. This corresponds to θ-role assignment if the checker is an argument (if it has a complete set of ϕ-features). Suppose the checker is an expletive. Expletives need an associate, with which they check ϕ-features. If the proper interpretation of [VIII] is that it implies that the interpretation of α and β is identical whenever the ϕ-features of α and β are related by a series of checking relations (i.e., if there are c i c j, 1 i,j, n, such that c 1 =α, c n =β, c i and c i+1 have checked ϕ-features), then the θ-role corresponding to FF a (P) goes to the associate of the expletive. [i] is thus established. We also wish to derive [ii]: [ii] A θ-role of P is assigned to a single category only. θ-roles are assigned when [-interpretable] features in FF a (P) attract a DP (or a PP), 42

43 43 so that ϕ-features can be checked. The [-interpretable] features in FF a (P) are deleted after checking, so there can be no second assignment process 21. Thus, one half of the θ-criterion is derived. One may also wish to establish the validity of [iii], which is perhaps, not always fulfilled, however (Saito 2000). [iii] A DP picks up at most one θ-role Since θ-assignment is due to the checking of ϕ-features of a predicate by a DP. [iii] is violated when DP α checks two such sets. Arguments do not check features by simply merging in some position. Given that one must not exclude the possibility that a DP can check features of different sublabels of K when it is attracted by K (or a sublabel of K), a situation incompatible with [iii] can easily arise. Note that the checking of multiple FF a (P) on a single head leads to a reflexive predicate, and the idea that a DP binding an anaphor in a reflexive construction may also carry the anaphor's θ-role does not seem too outrageous (we would have to be able to guarantee, however, that a reflexive marking appears in such a situation). Likewise, the θ-criterion of Chomsky 1981 also implies [iv], which we cannot derive because nothing forces 22 that DPs pick up θ-roles at all. Given the existence of polysynthetic languages, in which DPs are not θ-marked, this is not an unwelcome result. [iv] (An argument-) DP must have exactly one θ-role. 6. Conclusion A-Scrambling does not exist. The empirical arguments in its favor are not conclusive, and its conceptual basis, namely the assumption that θ-assignment is directly linked to Merge, is not well-founded. The degree of freedom of constituent order is a function 43

44 44 of two parametric lexical choices. When attracting D-features of T and F in the verbal domain are strong, different patterns of strict constituent order arise, when they are not, the language exerts a certain degree of freedom of serialization. The analysis developed in this paper constitutes corroborating evidence for specific assumptions of the Minimalist Program. A-Scrambling is a rule that does not fit into Minimalism if we want to avoid solutions that respect the wording but not the spirit of the Minimalist Program: it is not triggered by the need of feature checking. If such a rule does not occur in natural languages, the Minimalist Program is the only approach that has an answer to the question of why it does not exist. Gisbert Fanselow, Department of Linguistics, University of Potsdam Postfach , Potsdam, Germany [email protected] Notes Parts of this paper were presented at the 19 th GLOW Colloquium, Athens, April Thanks go to Artemis Alexiadou, Hubert Haider, Anoop Mahajan, Gereon Müller, Eric Reuland, Matthias Schlesewsky, Chris Wilder, and two anonymous LI-reviewers for helpful suggestions. The research reported here was partially supported by DFG grant #INK 12/A1 to the Innovationskolleg Formale Modelle kognitiver Komplexität. 1 Consequently, (1c) improves when pronounced with a rise-fall ("hat") contour (cf. Jacobs 1997), which implies that the preposed phrase dumm has been A-bar-moved to a clause-internal topic position. See Krifka (1998), Haider & Rosengren (1998) and in 44

45 45 particular Frey (2000) for the distinction between (A-)Scrambling and clause internal topicalization. As mentioned above, we confine our attention to A-scrambling here. 2 This holds only if preverbal arguments can be constituents of VP in German, that is, if Kayne (1994) and Zwart (1993, 1997) are not correct in claiming that all languages have an underlying VO-structure. 3 Furthermore, the construction (18) can be formed with wh-expletives (see Fanselow & Mahajan 2000), and the gap in the adjunct clause may be a PP (see Fanselow 1993). These properties are also incompatible with a parasitic gap analysis. 4 Our analysis of (18a) may resemble ATB-accounts of parasitic gaps (Huybregts & van Riemsdijk 1985, Williams 1990), but it is not meant to account for real parasitic gaps and does not involve across-the-board movement. Therefore, the arguments against ATB-accounts of true parasitic gaps do not apply to our model. 5 The interpretation of DPs can be sensitive to their position relative to certain adverbs (see Diesing 1992). Thus, bare plural Biber is (preferentially) interpreted as generic in (ia), but gets a (preferred) existential interpretation in (ib). If adverbs such as wahrscheinlich mark the VP-boundary, the interpretation of bare plurals seems to depend on whether they are part of VP at LF or not. (i) a. dass Biber wahrscheinlich Dämme bauen that beavers probably dams build 'that beavers probably build dams' b. dass wahrscheinlich Biber Dämme bauen Even if Biber is merged in a V-projection in (ib), and in a higher one in (ia), this does not imply that (ia) is derived from (ib) by movement in the system of θ-role as- 45

46 46 signment developed in Sect. 3. The absence of reconstruction effects in the interaction of DPs with adverbs rather suggests that traces are not involved. If (ia) is derived from (ib), there should be a trace of it c-commanded by wahrscheinlich, and it is unclear why the interpretation of Biber can not also be determined relative to this trace. 6 Saito (2000) makes a similar proposal for θ-assignment in Japanese light verb constructions. In Haider's (1993) account of remnant movement, arguments of the lower verb merge in the upper VP, but he stipulates a process of argument transmission for that. A reviewer finds the idea of VP-reconstruction and of incorporation moving V out of such a reconstructed VP problematic. The binding option in (i) presupposes, however, that reconstruction is possible. Müller (1998:259ff.) discusses cases of overt incorporation out of VPs that are placed into Spec,CP. It is not likely that the covert counterpart of this operation should then be illegitimate. (i) [ VP sein i Lieblingsbuch stehlen] darf man keinem i his favorite book steal may one.nom nobody.dat "one must not rob anybody of his favorite book" 7 Müller (1998:31) defines barriers as follows: "XP is a barrier for α iff there is an X n (0 n P) such that (a), (b), and (c) hold: (a) X n includes α, (b) X n is not a complement, (c) X 0 is distinct from Y 0, where XP is the complement of Y 0 ". The point made above thus applies only to categories included in XP. If α is adjoined to XP, it may move "out of XP" even if X has not incorporated into a higher Y. Note, however, that we are dealing with "short" A-scrambling only, that is, with languages in which adjunction by leftward movement is confined to VP and IP (Müller & Sternefeld 1993). The heads of VP and IP always incorporate into the category selecting them be- 46

47 47 fore LF, so adjunction does not give rise to scrambling options that could not also be made possible by incorporation in these cases. While overt movement out of adjuncts or specifiers is correctly blocked by such a definition of barriers, specifiers Σ must be able to check features with c-commanding heads Y, which is effected by covert attraction of FF[Σ] to Y, and may thus seem to constitute a problem. (Thanks to Chris Wilder and an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.) Recall, however, that the label of a projection is identical with the label of its head (Chomsky 1995:241ff.). Therefore, FF[Σ] is present on all elements of the projection line. In a natural sense, FF[Σ] is thus not included in the maximal projection X of Σ, since it is part of the label of X. It can therefore be attracted from that position. This possibility is restricted to the covert attraction (overt headattraction of a maximal projection implies contradictory requirements concerning pied piping) of feature sets without unchecked selectional features f (since later checking of f would not imply that the corresponding feature f of the head of Σ is also checked, because the two occurences of f are not connected by a chain), as required. 8 That the construction is confined to R-pronouns like da 'it' (lit.: 'there') can be expressed in terms of conditions on incorporation. Assume that P does not check Case when combined with R-pronouns (which may be PP-like), and that it checks oblique Case when combined with normal DPs. Kayne (1981) argues that P cannot incorporate into V if it assigns oblique Case. This implies the privileged status of R- pronoun-complements for incorporation. 9 Compare (44) with (i) - (ii). The picture is often blurred because subjects of passives and unaccusative Vs may remain in the object position (see Fanselow 1987). 47

48 48 (i) *Über Polen hat man einem Buch einen Preis verliehen about Poland has one a.dat book a prize awarded 'One has awarded a prize to a book about Poland' (ii) *Über Polen hat mich ein Buch widerlegt About Poland has me a book refuted 'A book about Poland has refuted me" 10 In Chomsky 1995, syntactic objects S are (built from) triples <ϕ,σ,λ>, where ϕ is a collection of phonological features, λ a set of semantic features, and σ = FF[S], the set of formal features of S, which may be interpretable or not. Covert movement piedpipes σ only, and not λ - thus semantic and interpretable formal features differ with respect to mobility. 11 "C-command" has to be understood in a strict form, such that a c-commands b if every segment of a category dominating a also dominate b. Thereby, the intuitive hierarchy of elements adjoined to a head H can be expressed in terms of c-command. 12 [V] differs from the Parallel Movement Constraint proposed by Müller (2000b) only in the following respect: Parallel Movement requires an identity of c-command relations among targets and traces, while [V] does so for attractors and targets. An investigation of the relation between the two principles is beyond the scope of the article. 13 α cannot have been attracted overtly by a strong l-related feature of V, v, or T, because strong features of X must be checked before the maximal projection of X is merged with some K, that is, before X has a chance to move to C. 14 Some theories allow mixed positions (Grimshaw 1997), in particular, for subjects 48

49 49 that have moved to Spec,CP in other models. If they are correct, one does not want exclude the simultaneous checking of l-related and operator features. Such positions may also figure in an account of long (A-bar) Scrambling, see Fanselow (2000a). 15 The difference between strong and weak features f then reduces to whether f attracts a set of formal features (weak f) or whether larger segments are pied-piped (strong f). 16 The crucial observation is that matrix clause adverbs can intervene between the accusative noun phrase and the infinitive in English ECM-constructions, which suggests that the accusative noun phrase has moved to a position in the matrix clause. In other words, there must be a landing site for NP-movement in the verb phrase in a broader sense. Given that the ECM-accusative NP formally behaves like any other direct object, a generalization of the movement idea to all direct objects seems possible. 17 One might suspect that the object moves to the specifier position of V itself, followed by movement of V to v. This solution seems to work smoothly, but it implies that lexical categories have strong attracting features - perhaps not an innocuous assumption within Minimalism, as one of the reviewers points out. 18 The order in (i) creates no problem, because arose has moved across F, so that it precedes any X in VP. Complex cases with unaccusative verbs seem ungrammatical with both orders, for reasons that need not concern us here. (i) (ii) There arose a storm?there will arise a storm/*there will a storm arise External arguments of intransitive verbs could be merged in VP and not in the specifier of v in our approach. This consequence is not necessarily bad: in the optimal case, 49

50 50 differences between intransitive and unaccusative constructions reduce to selectional differences (selected by v or by V) rather than to positional differences of their single argument. Other options for expressing the intransitive-unaccusative distinction exist, of course. Intransitives might for example be hidden transitives (Chomsky 1995). 19 Belletti & Shlonsky (1995) derive the free order in VP in French and Italian by movement. Their major evidence is that ne-clitization is sensitive to focus conditions if DP follows PP. This is reminiscent of German normal order effects, which must be captured without reference to movement, as we have seen above. 20 "Distinct" Case is meant syntactically, and not morphologically. 21 For space reasons, we ignore an option discussed by Reuland (1997), according to which the checking of φ-features by anaphors need not be complete, so that FF a (P) might attract twice. Likewise, in the spirit of Chomsky (1998), we assume that Caseless DPs are immobile, so that D cannot be eliminated from FF a (P) independent of Case. 22 This is so because there seems to be no a priori limit for the number of heads appearing in a clause that can check Case. These heads are the crucial elements for licensing DPs. 50