Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments

260 Pages·1999·7.94 MB·English

by  Ad Neeleman

FLEXIBLE SYNTAX
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
VOLUME 47
Managing Editors
Liliane Haegeman, University of Geneva
Joan Maling, Brandeis University
James McCloskey, University of California, Santa Cruz
Editorial Board
Carol Georgopoulos, University of Utah
Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice
Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University
Michael Kenstowicz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles
Howard Lasnik, University of Connecticut at Storrs
Alec Marantz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John J. McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Ian Roberts, University of Stuttgart
The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.
FLEXIBLE SYNTAX
A Theory of Case and Arguments
by
ADNEELEMAN
Department of Phonetics and Linguistics,
University College London, U.K.
and
FRED WEERMAN
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS,
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
••
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DORDRECHT I BOSTON I LONDON
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 0-7923-6058-3
Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
P.O. Box 17, 3300AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Sold and distributed in North, Central and South America
by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A.
In all other countries, sold and distributed
by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved
© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
Nun sag: nichts weisst du, was ich dich frage;
jetzt meld, was du weisst;-
denn etwas musst du doch wissen.
Richard Wagner, Parsifal, Erster Aufzug
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface .......................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Prologue ................................................ 1
1. Introduction ........................................... " 1
2. Case Theory ............................................ 5
3. El-Theory ............................................. " 8
4. Word Order ............................................ 11
5. Overview .............................................. 15
Bibliographical Note ....................................... 16
o
Chapter 2: The VIVO Parameter ..................................... 17
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
2. The Domain ofe-role Assignment .......................... 19
3. The Domains of Head Government. ......................... 22
4. The Formation ofVP Shells ............................... 27
5. Particles ............................................... 31
6. Scrambling ............................................ 38
7. Double Object Constructions .............................. 45
8. Exceptional Case Marking ................................ 53
9. Concluding Remarks ..................................... 55
Chapter 3: Morphological Case ...................................... 59
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2. Asymmetries between Nominative and Case .................. 62
2.1 Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.2 Case Affixes ....................................... 64
2.3 Selection .......................................... 67
2.4 Case Attraction ..................................... 68
2.5 Acquisition ......................................... 69
3. Syntactic Effects of Morphological Case ..................... 70
3.1 Complementation .................................... 71
3.2 VO-Ieakages ....................................... 74
3.3 Scrambling across Arguments .......................... 78
3.4 Quirky Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
4. Toward a Theory of Case Features .......................... 82
4.1 The Organization of Case Paradigms .................... 84
4.2 Morphological Case in German ......................... 91
4.3 Morphological Case in Icelandic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5. Concluding Remarks .................................... 102
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 4: Prepositional Complements ................................ 105
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 105
2. The Problem .......................................... 107
3. Indirect a-Role Assignment .............................. 112
4. LF Incorporation ....................................... 114
5. Empirical Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116
5.1 PP Subjects ....................................... 117
5.2 PP Complements and Case ........................... 120
5.3 Idiomatic Selection ................................. 123
5.4 PP-DP Coordination ................................ 125
5.5 Double PP Constructions ............................. 128
5.6 Excursus on the Distribution of Selected PPs ............. l34
6. PP Complements to Nouns ............................... l37
7. Concluding Remarks .................................... 142
Chapter 5: Raising to Subject ....................................... 145
1. Introduction ........................................... 145
2. f)-Role Promotion as A'-Movement ........................ 147
3. NP Raising as Null Operator Movement ..................... 153
3.1 Designing a Trigger ................................. 153
3.2 Case Absorption ................................... 155
3.3 Raising to f)-Positions ............................... 156
3.4 Raising of Non-Arguments ........................... 158
3.5 Raising to Object Positions ........................... 159
3.6 Coordination ...................................... 160
4. Short versus Long Null Operator Movement ................. 162
4.1 Superraising ....................................... 163
4.2 Non-Competing Derivations .......................... 167
4.3 Cyclicity .......................................... 169
5. Improper Movement .................................... 172
6. Concluding Remarks .................................... 176
Chapter 6: Head Marking .......................................... 179
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 179
2. Head-Marking Affixes .................................. 182
3. Absolutive-Ergative Languages ........................... 187
3.1 The Ergativity Parameter ............................. 187
3.2 Empirical Consequences ............................. 191
4. VSO Languages ........................................ 195
4.1 The VSO Parameter ................................. 195
4.2 Japanese Nominatives ............................... 202
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
5. The Linearization of Subjects ............................. 208
5.1 Anaphoric Dependence .............................. 208
5.2 Nominative-Dative Inversion ......................... 210
5.3 Expletives ........................................ 214
5.4 Locative Inversion .................................. 216
6. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 219
Chapter 7: Epilogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 223
2. Falsifiability .......................................... 223
3. Flexibility ............................................ 226
References ...................................................... 231
Index ........................................................... 245
PREFACE
This book developed out of a realization that many problems cannot be solved
insightfully within current linguistic theories, because these assume that each
grammatical relation is established in a unique structural configuration. A better
understanding of these problems can be achieved, we believe, if a more flexible theory
is assumed.
The introduction of this study gives an overview of the entire argumentation and
the main claims that we make. At the outset of each subsequent chapter we state which
of these claims will be discussed. The material covered in the various chapters is
intimately related at a theoretical level. Yet most chapters focus on a specific empirical
domain and can therefore be read separately, at least to some extent. However, we
advise readers only interested in a particular chapter to also read chapter 1, as this
chapter provides the background against which the various specific proposals can be
understood. Other readers can use chapter I, and especially the overview in section 5,
to check how claims they encounter fit in with other aspects of the theory.
The idea of flexibility was not the starting point of the research reported here.
Rather, it suggested itself ever more forcefully over about seven years of research on
case and thematic relations. In this period numerous people have helped us in one way
or another. It would be impossible to mention all of them here, but there are some who
we wish to thank in particular.
Courses which allowed us to present substantial parts of this study have proved
invaluable in clarifying issues and presentation. We are especially grateful to those who
attended the advanced syntax seminars at University College London and Utrecht
University. In addition, important contributions were made during graduate courses at
the University of Amsterdam and the University of Budapest in 1995.
The Department of Phonetics and Linguistics at UCL and the Utrecht Institute of
Linguistics OTS have, over the years, offered us a stimulating working environment.
This study has further benefitted from comments made by Peter Ackema, Denis
Bouchard, Michael Brody, Gloria Cocchi, Ger de Haan, Petra de Wit, Denis Delfitto,
Frank Drijkoningen, Arnold Evers, Jane Grimshaw, Johan Kerstens, Olaf Koeneman,
Hans van de Koot, Joan Maling, Alec Marantz, Paola Monachesi, Mark Newson,
Jacomine Nortier, Tanya Reinhart, Eric Reuland, Neil Smith, Kriszta Szendroi and an
anonymous reviewer.
xi
CHAPTER 1
PROLOGUE
1. INTRODUCTION
An important issue, but one seldom made explicit in recent syntactic work, concerns
the flexibility of the computational system. Is each grammatical relation established in
a unique structural configuration, or are grammatical relations structurally
underdetermined in that they can hold between elements in different configurations?
On the latter view, for which we will argue in this study, grammatical relations are not
rigid but flexible.
Applied to the syntax of arguments, this issue presents itself in the following way.
One could assume that the domain in which a predicate can realize its arguments is
defmed such that for each argument a range of positions is available in principle.
Alternatively, each argument can occur in exactly one position. In that case a very strict
definition of the domain of argument realization is adopted.
At first blush it may seem that the rigid view of argument realization is to be
preferred on conceptual grounds. It allows fewer structures, and can hence be falsified
more easily. This is only true, however, iflinguistic theory is non-modular. As soon as
there are various subsystems, which jointly determine the output of the grammar as a
whole, it is an open question how rigid each of these subsystems must be. Suppose that
a language allows an argument to be realized in more than one syntactic position. The
rigid theory would have to postulate one or more movements to deal with such a
situation. The flexible theory, on the other hand, could simply analyze the various
argument positions as base-generated. Thus, the advantage of the rigid theory may
become a disadvantage with respect to the theory of movement and vice versa. The
issue at hand is therefore an entirely empirical one.
Government-binding theory (cf. Chomsky 1981, 1986b) clearly adopts a rigid
syntax. In order to see this, first consider how the distribution of arguments is
accounted for. Two sub-theories are relevant. f)-theory links syntactic to semantic
representations, while case theory explains the surface characteristics of arguments.
These two modules affect four levels of representation. D-structure is a projection of
the thematic properties of heads and of their inherent cases. S-structure is the level at
which structural case is assigned. At LF, the interface with semantics, two conditions
apply: visibility ensures that elements with a f)-role also have case and the f)-criterion
requires a one-to-one relation between arguments and thematic roles. The interface with
phonology, which we will henceforth refer to as PF, is responsible for the distinction
between languages with syntactic and with morphological case: in the latter, spell-out
rules provide arguments with an overt reflection of their abstract case. This so-called
'T-model' is given below: