Extraposition from NP in Dutch: Some Consequences of Minimalism. Edith Kaan

Extraposition from NP in Dutch: Some Consequences of Minimalism Edith Kaan 1. Introduction 1 Extraposition from NP has formerly been analyzed as involving rightward movement of an NP-internal PP or Relative Clause (RC) (cf. Baltin 1981, 1983, 1984). For instance, the sentences (lb) and (2b) were assumed to be derived from (la) and (2a), respectively. (1) a. dat ik een man [ PP met drie armen] ontmoet heb. that I a man with three arms met have "that I met a man with three arms." b. dat ik een man ontmoet heb [ PP met drie armen]. (2) a. dat ik een man [ RC die drie armen had] ontmoet heb. that I a man who three arms had met have "that 1 met a man who had three arms." b. dat ik een man ontmoet heb [ RC die drie armen had]. This analysis is no longer tenable in the minimalist framework of Chomsky (1992). In this framework, the concept of economy requires that an element can only move if this movement is necessary for feature checking. Extraposition of a PP or RC from NP is not likely to be triggered in this sense, and would hence be ruled out as a violation of economy. Furthermore, Kayne (1992) conjectures that universally specifiers are to the left of a functional head, and complements are to the right. If specifiers and head are the only positions in which features can be checked, movement always is to a specifier or head position, which implies that movement is always leftward. This renders an analysis of extraposition as involving rightward movement conceptually anomalous. In what follows I will propose an analysis of extraposition from NP that is compatible with the minimalist assumptions and Kayne's conjecture. However, first I will show that an analysis of (lb) and (2b) in terms of movement is anomalous for other reasons as well. 2. Left-Right Asymmetries As noted by Zwart (1990), in Dutch, extraposition from NP is less restricted than w/i-movement from NP. First, not every PP that can undergo extraposition can be w/j-moved. Compare for instance the paradigms in (3) and (4). In the b-sentences the PP is extraposed, in the c-sentences it is w/j-moved. 2 (3) a. Hij heeft (^ een man ( PP uit India]] ontmoet. He has a man from India met "He met a man from India." b. Hij heeft [^ een man] ontmoet [ PP uit India]. c. [ PP Uit welk land] heeft hij [ NT een man] ontmoet? From which country has he a man met I would like to thank Werner Abraham for suggesting me to write this paper, and Marcel den Dikken and Jan-Wouter Zwart for their comments on the draft However, it is not clear whether the PP is actually extracted from NP in constructions like (3c). See Kaan (1992) and references cited there UX4 0

A 145 (4) a. Hij heeft [^p een man [ PP met drie armen]] ontmoet. He has a man with three arms met "He met a man with three arms." b. Hij heeft [^p een man] ontmoet [ PP met drie armen]. c. * [ PP Met hoeveel armen/ waarmee] heeft hij [^ een man] ontmoet? with how many arms/ with what has he a man met Second, as opposed to a w/i-moved PP, an extraposed PP can be related to an NP embedded in a PP. This PP can be a complement to V (5) or an adjunct (6). 3 (5) a. Hij heeft [ PP naar [ N tp een boek [ PP met een gele kaft]] gezocht. he has for a book with a yellow cover looked "He looked for a book with a yellow cover." b. Hij heeft [ pp naar [^ een boek]] gezocht [?P met een gele kaft]. c. * [ PP Met wat voor een kleur kaft / Waarmee] heeft hij [ PP naar [ NP een with what for a color cover/ with what has he for a boek]] gezocht? book looked (6) a. Hij is [ PP in [^p een park [ PP met een eendevijver]] gestorven. he has in a park with a duck pond died b. Hij is [ PP in [^ een park] gestorven [ pp met een eendevijver]. c. * [ PP Met wat voor een vijver / Waarmee] is hij [ pp in [^ een park] with what sort of pond / with what is he in a park gestorven? died In Dutch, the PP can be embedded in an NP as well (9): (7) a. dat het [^ een weerlegging [ Pp van [ NT de kritiek [ Pp op de that it a disproof of the criticism of the NP-constraint]]]] bevatte. NP-constraint contained b. dat het [^ een weerlegging [ pp van [^ de kritiek]]] bevatte [ pp op de NPconstraint]. c. * [ pp Op welke constraint/ Waarop) bevatte het [^ een weerlegging [ pp van [ Np de kritiek]]]! (Zwart 1990: ex.(10)) Finally, a specified subject internal to the NP (8), or a definite determiner (9), which in general inhibits»v/i-extraction, does not block extraposition: (8) a. dat [^p jouw kritiek [ PP op dat artikel] verschenen is. that your criticism of that article appeared has b. dat [j^jp jouw kritiek] verschenen is [ pp op dat artikel]. c. * (pp Op welk artikel/ Waarop] is [^ jouw kritiek] verschenen? However, the extraposed element cannot be related to an NP inside a sentence modifier (i) a dat wij er [ondanks alle tegenslagen die ons onderweg troffen] uiteindelijk toch that we there dispite all misfortunes thatus along-the-way struck in the end aangekomen waren arnved had b * dat wij er [ondanks alle tegenslagen] uiteindelijk toch aangekomen waren die ons onderweg troffen QU

I 146 (9) a. dat [^p de kritiek [ PP op dat artikel]] verschenen is. that the criticism of that article appeared has b. dat [^[p de kritiek] verschenen is [ PP op dat artikel]. c.?* [pp Op welk artikel/ Waarop] is [^ de kritiek] verschenen? These left-right asymmetries are quite puzzling if both wh-extraction and extraposition involve movement from NP. Since w/i-movement is uncontroversial, these differences suggest that extraposition is derived by a different mechanism. 3. A Minimalist Approach 3.1. Base Generating EX Following Culicover and Rochemont (1990), Rochemont and Culicover (1990), Koster (1978) and others, I assume that the "extraposed" PP or RC, henceforth EX, is base generated in its right-peripheral position, that is, right-adjoined to VP, AgrP, or another maximal projection. Before or at the level of LF, EX must be linked to the NP it interpretatively belongs to. If no such linking takes place, the PP or RC cannot be interpreted, leading to a violation of the Principle of Full Interpretation (FI). This linking of EX and one or more NPs is not fully unrestricted, however. First, a CP-boundary cannot be crossed. This is shown below, where the PP is illicitly related to an NP inside a sentential subject (10), inside the CP complement of a factive verb (11), or internal to a relative clause (12) (cf. Ross's (1967) Upward Boundedness). 4 (10) a. 1.QJ dat ik een man uit Venray ontmoette] werd al gauw duidelijk. that I a man from Venray met became soon clear b. [ CP dat ik een man ontmoette uit Venray] werd al gauw duidelijk. c. * [ CP dat ik een man ontmoette ] werd al gauw duidelijk uit Venray. (11) a. dat ik [ CP dat ik een man uit Venray ontmoet had] al gauw that I that I a man from Venray met had soon betreurde. regretted b. dat ik [QJ, dat ik een man ontmoet had uit Venray] al gauw betreurde. c. * dat ik [ cp dat ik een man ontmoet had] al gauw betreurde uit Venray. (12) a. dat ik niemand [ CP die ooit een man uit Venray ontmoet heeft] that I no one that ever a man from Venray met has gesproken heb. spoken have b. dat ik niemand [ CP die ooit een man ontmoet heeft uit Venray] gesproken heb. c. * dat ik niemand [ C p die ooit een man ontmoet heeft] gesproken heb uit Venray. Second, as has been shown by Baltin (1981), EX cannot be fronted along with the VP or a higher projection if the NP stays behind. Consider the sentences in (13). (13) a. [De man begroet [^ytnet de drie armen\\^ heeft zij niet. b. * [Begroet \^x met de drie armen]] heeft zij de man niet. However, linking to an NP inside a subcategonzed, non-topicalized CP is not so bad. as shown in (I) (Example provided by Marcel den Dikken)' (i) dat de regering beweerde [Q> dat ze een wet voorbereidde] tegenover een afvaardiging van de pers [^ die that the government claimed that it a law prepared to a representation of the press which arbeidsongeschikten gratis toegang tot theaters verleent] disabled free admission to theatres provides 0x47

I 147 In (13a) the VP or a higher projection, containing both the NP and EX is fronted. In (13b) the object NP is stranded. The ungrammaticality of (13b) cannot be due to the object trace inside the fronted VP being ungoverned: (14), where a VP is fronted with its adjuncts, is fairly acceptable. (14) [Op straat met een handdruk begroet ] heeft zij de man niet. on the street with a hand shake greeted has she the man not. These restrictions can be captured by imposing conditions on the principle that links EX to its NP. 3.2 Linking I would like to propose the following linking principle: (15) Interpretative linking an X max a can be interpretatively linked to a chain-ß if both (i) and (ii): (i) a strongly binds ß (ii) there is no 5, 6 a CP, such that 6 dominates ß and does not contain a. (16) a category a dominates ß iff ß is dominated by every segment of a The notion of strong binding is due to E. Hoekstra (1991). I will employ the following definition of strong binding, which is slightly different from the one given in Hoekstra (op.cit.). (17) a strongly binds ß iff a strongly c-commands ß (18) a strongly c-commands ß iff every node containing a dominates the head of the chain ß and neither a nor ß contains the other. Since CP is the only blocking category (15ii), the linking principle accounts for the unrestrictedness of EX within CP. For instance, in (7) EX can be linked to the embedded NP. The structure of (7) is given in (19). Suppose that in Dutch, NPs overtly raise to [SPEC, AGROP] for reasons of Case (cf. Vanden Wijngaerd 1988). Nothing prevents EX from being generated in the position adjoined to, say, AGROP. Thus, every node containing EX dominates the head of the one-membered NP-chain formed by the italicized NP. (19) dat het [AQRQP IMP een weerlegging [ PP van [j^ de kritiek]]] bevatte [ EX op de NP-constraint]]. In the same vein, (15) allows EX to be linked to an NP inside an adjunct PP (cf.(6b)): (20) Hij is [p P in [^p een park]] gestorven [ EX met een eendevijver]. If EX in (20) is adjoined higher than the PP, the former strongly binds the NP contained in the latter. Again, there is no intervening CP-boundary, so, linking is permitted. The requirement of strong c-command (17) correctly accounts for the contrast noted in (13). The structures are given in (21): (21) a. IAGROP INP & e man \ met Ivp begroet r,] [ EX de drie armen]]]: heeft zij niet fc. b. * [yp Begroet t, [ Ex met de drie armen]]* heeft zij de man t niet tj. Note that this notion of strong binding is quite different from the one familiar from lowg/i-movement constructions 014

148 The trace t, is the VP-internal trace of the NP de man. 6 The NP itself has been raised to [SPEC, AGROP]. In (21a) EX is base generated in a position adjoined to AGROP, and strongly binds the head of the NP-chain [De man,, i,]. In (21b), on the other hand, the first node containing EX, say VP, only dominates the foot of the chain. EX cannot be linked to the NP and, therefore, cannot be interpreted at LF. Note that reconstruction of the fronted constituent at LF will still result in an FI violation in (21b). Reconstruction will yield a configuration b which EX is in a position lower than the antecedent NP. From this position, it cannot c-command the latter. The principle in (15) also accounts for the relative acceptability of (22a) 7, the structure of which is given in (b): (22) a.? De man begroet heeft zij niet, met de drie armen b. IAGROP D e man i begroet r, ]] heeft zij niet t= [ Ex met de drie armen]. If in (22) EX is adjoined to the matrix CP, it can strongly bind the italicized NP. The linking principle in (15), then, correctly accounts for most of the facts considered above. 4. Extensions The linking mechanism in (15) can be extended to cases other than extraposition from NP. The phenomena to be discussed below are epithets, appositives and equatives. These constructions display the same properties as extraposition from NP, indicating that the same interpretative mechanism is operative. 4.1 Epithets An example of a sentence containing an epithet is given in (23): (23) Piet had voortdurend zitten giechelen, de ezel. Piet had continuously sit giggle, the donkey "Piet had been giggling continuously, the nitwit". Parallel to PPs or RCs, an epithet can be linked to an NP embedded inside PP and/or NP. (24) Jan had [ PP met [ N Tp de moeder [ pp van Piet]]] gesproken, de ezel. Jan had to the mother of Piet spoken, the donkey Furthermore, (25b) shows that epithets are CP-bound: (25) a. [ CP Dat Piet voortdurend had zitten giechelen, de ezel] was alom that Piet continuously had sit giggle, the donkey was everywhere bekend, known "That Piet, the nitwit, had been giggling continuously, was generally known." b.?* [ CT Dat Piet voortdurend had zitten giechelen] was alom bekend, de ezel. Finally, the VP-fronting contrasts are similar to those found in the case of extraposition from NP: (26) a. Zij had Piet niet gekust, de ezel. Under the assumption that Dutch is SVO underlyingly, see Zwart (1992) According to Baltin (1981) similar constructions are unacceptable in English I would like to thank Jan Koster for drawing my attention to these phenomena 0±4 d

149 She had Piet not kissed, the donkey b. [Piet gekust, de ezel]-, had zij niet t ;. c. [Piet gekust]j had zij niet tj, de ezel. d. * [Gekust, de ezeï]^ had zij Piet niet t s. Indeed, (26d) is the only example where the epithet cannot strongly bind the antecedent. 4.2 Appositives Appositives display a similar pattern. As can be seen in (27b), clause final appositives can be linked to an embedded NP (cf. Klein 1977 contra Halitsky 1974): (27) a. Wim had Goldreyer gesproken, de beroemdste schilder aller tijden. Wim had Goldreyer spoken, the most famous painter ever "Wim had spoken to Goldreyer, the most famous painter ever." b. Wim had [ PP met [^ de moeder [ pp van Goldreyer]]] gesproken, Wim had to the mother of Goldreyer spoken, de beroemdste schilder aller tijden. the most famous painter ever This linking is restricted to CP, as shown in (28): (28) a. [ CP Dat Wim Goldreyer gesproken had, de beroemdste schilder aller that Wim Goldreyer spoken had, the most famous painter tijden] was alom bekend, ever was everywhere known, b. * lc P Dat Wim Goldreyer gesproken had] was alom bekend, de beroemdste schilder aller tijden. As far as VP-fronting is concerned, the examples (29a-c) below are a bit awkward, but (29d) is outright ungrammatical. Again, this is not surprising if the appositive is interpretatively linked to its "antecendent" by means of the linking principle in (15). (29) a. Wim had Goldreyer niet gesproken, de beroemdste schilder aller tijden. Wim had Goldreyer not spoken, the most famous painter ever b. [Goldreyer gesproken, de beroemdste schilder aller tijden^ had Wim met tj. c.?? [Goldreyer gesproken ]j had Wim met tj, de beroemdste schilder aller tijden d. * [Gesproken, de beroemdste schilder aller tijden]-, had Wim Goldreyer niet tj. 4.3 Equatives A final extension of the linking principle is the linking of equatives (cf. Ross 1969): (30) a. Ik heb iets raars gezien: een hoogspanningsmast gevuld met brood. I have something strange seen: a power pylon filled with bread, b. Ik heb [ PP in [^ de schaduw [ pp van iets raars]]] gezeten: een I have in the shade of something strange sat: a hoogspanningsmast gevuld met brood. power pylon filled with bread As shown in (30b) linking of the equative can cross a PP and an NP boundary. However, a CP node cannot easily be skipped: (31) a. [Q> Dat ik iets raars gezien had: een hoogspanningsmast gevuld met That I something strange seen had: a power pylon filled with brood] was alom bekend, bread was everywhere known OioO

b.?? [ C p Dat ik iets raars gezien had ] was alom bekend: een hoogspanningsmast gevuld met brood. As to VP-fronting, equatives behave according to expectation: (32) a. Hij had wel iets raars gezien: een hoogspanningsmast gevuld met He had indeed something strange seen: a power pylon filled with brood. bread b.? [Iets raars gezien: een hoogspanningsmast gevuld met brood]- t had hij wel t v c. [Iets raars gezien]j had hij wel tj: een hoogspanningsmast gevuld met brood]. d. * [Gezien: een hoogspanningsmast gevuld met brood] i had hij wel iets raars t v In sum, the linking principle as proposed in (15) also has its merits outside the domain of extraposition. 5. Concluding Remarks The purpose of this paper was to give a treatment of extraposition from NP respecting the minimalist assumptions and Kayne's ban on rightward movement. These preconditions lead to an analysis in terms of base generation and linking of EX to the NP. To conclude this paper I would like to point out some problems. In this article I have confined myself to Dutch. As is well-known, English and German extraposition from NP is more restricted. In these languages, PPs generally cannot be extracted from NPs embedded in another NP. Why languages should differ on this point is a question for further investigation. Furthermore, the linking principle in (15) clearly is too strong and too weak. On the one hand, it rules out extraposition from subcategorized CPs as shown in footnote 4. On the other hand, it does not exclude constructions such as the one in (33), where EX is linked to a prenominal element. (33) * dat ik [ NT een man z'n olifant] gezien heb uit India. that I a man's elephant seen have from India "that I saw a man's elephant from India". In (33), linking EX to the underscored NP does not cross a CP-boundary, and hence should be permitted by (15). I would like to refer to Kaan (1992) and Den Dikken (1993) for further discussion concerning these and other issues. References Baltin, M. (1981), "Strict Bounding". In: C. Baker and J. McCarthy (eds.), 77ie Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge/London. Baltin, M. (1983), "Extraposition: Bounding versus Government-Binding". Linguistic Inquiry 14, 155-162. Baltin, M. (1984), "Extraposition Rules and Discontinous Constituents". Linguistic Inquiry 14, 157-163. Chomsky, N. (1992), "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory". MIT Occasional Working Papers in Linguistics, 1. Culicover, P. and M. Rochemont (1990), "Extraposition and the Complement Principle". Linguistic Inquiry 21, 23-47. Dikken, M. den (1993), "Extraposition from NP - Movement at LF.", Hand-out, VU Amsterdam/ U. of Groningen. Halitsky, D. (1974), "Deep Structure Appositive and Complement NPs". Language 50, 446-455. Hoekstra, E. (1991), Licensing Conditions on Phrase Structure. Doct. diss. U. of Groningen. Kaan, E. (1992), "A Minimalist Approach to Extraposition", MA thesis, U. of Groningen. Kayne, R. (1992), "Word Order." Glow Lecture, Lisbon. Klein, M. (1977), Appositionele Constructies in het Nederlands. Doct. diss., U. of Nijmegen. Koster, J. (1978), Locality principles in Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. Rochemont, M. and P. Culicover (1990), English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Uibl

Ross, J. (1967), Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doct. diss. MIT. Ross, J. (1969), "Adjectives as Noun Phrases". In: D. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.), Modem Studies in English. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Wyngaerd, G. Vanden (1988), "Object-shift as an A-movement Rule". MIT Working Papers in Linguistics II. Zwart, J.-W. (1990), "PP Extraposition from NP in Dutch". Ms. U. of Groningen. Zwart, J.-W. (1992), "SOV Languages are Head Initial". Ms. U. of Groningen. Uió-^