canada - mcgill universitydigitool.library.mcgill.ca/thesisfile41360.pdf · ti sera avancé que le...
TRANSCRIPT
National Lrbraryof Canada
Bibliothèque nationaledu Canada
Acquisitions and Direçr,on des acquisitions etBibliographie services Branch des services bibliographiques
395 WellmQlon Streel 395. ru~ WclhnglonOttawa. Onlano Ottawa (Onlano)K1AQN-1 K1AON-1 ' ..... ',,',' ~ ..~". ,,",.. ,~, "
(\,, r•.',' ,\.,~ •• , .,..,.".... ','
NOTICE
The quality of this microform isheavily dependent upon thequality of the original thesissubmitted for microfilming.Every effort has been made toensure the highest quality ofreproduction possible.
If pages are missing, contact theuniversity which granted thedegree.
Sorne pages may have indistinctprint especially :f the originalpages were typed with a poortypewriter ribbon or if theuniversity sent us an inferiorphotocopy.
Reproduction in full or in part ofthis microform is governed bythe Canadian Copyright Act,R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30, andsubsequent amendments.
Canada
AVIS
La qualité de cette microformedépend grandement de la qualitéde la thèse soumise aumicrofilmage. Nous avons toutfait pour assurer une qualitésupérieure de reproduction.
S'il manque des pages, veuillezcommuniquer avec l'universitéqui a conféré le grade.
La qualité d'impression decertaines pages peut laisser àdésirer, surtout si les pagesoriginales ont étédactylographiées à l'aide d'unruban usé ou si l'université nousa fait parvenir une photocopie dequalité inférieure.
La reproduction, même partielle,de cette microforme est soumiseà la Loi canadienne sur le droitd'auteur, SRC 1970, c. C-30, etses amendements subséquents.
•
•
•
THE SYNTAX OF SENTENTIAL NEGATION:
Interactions with Case, Agreement, and(In)definiteness
by
Leslie J. de Freitas
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Researchin partial fulfillment cf the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of LinguisticsMcGiII UniversityMontréal, Québec
JULY1993
© Leslie J. de Freitas 1993
."". National Libraryof Canada
Bibliothèque nationaledu Canada
Acquisitions and Direction des acqUisitions etBibliographie Services Branch des services bibliographiques
395 WcllJnglon Slreel 395. rue WellinQtonQnawa.Onlano Onaw;) (Onl~nè)K1AON4 K1AON4
The author has granted anirrevocable non-exclusive licenceallowing the National Library ofCanada to reproduce, loan,distribute. or sell copies ofhisjher thesis by any means andin any form or format, makingthis thesis available to interestedpersons.
The author retains ownership ofthe copyright in hisjher thesis.Neither the thesis nor substantialextracts from it may be printed orotherwise reproduced withouthisjher permission.
L'auteur a accordé une licenceirrévocable et non exclusivepermettant à la Bibliothèquenationale du Canada dereproduire, prêter, distribuer ouvendre des copies de sa thèsede quelque manière et sousquelque forme que ce soit pourmettre des exemplaires de cettethèse à la disposition despersonnes intéressées.
L'auteur conserve la propriété dudroit d'auteur qui protège sathèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraitssubstantiels de celle-ci nedoivent être imprimés ouautrement reproduits sans sonautorisation.
ISBN 0-315-94606-7
Canada
•ABsTRACT
11ùs thesis undertakes to refine our understanding cf the syntactic properties ofsentential negation. The proposed analyses operate at the juncture of recentinnovations to Case, Agreement, and X-bar theories, within a Govemment andBinding framework. Case is checked in a Specifier/Head configurationwhenever possible, and agreement is analyzed as the reflex of a Case-checlàngoperation at S-structure. The proposaI that the inventory of functional categoriesavailable in Universal Grammar includes a Negation Phrase (NegP) is adoptedas a point of departure.
In the context of this investigation, certain syntactic properties are attributed tothe head and specifier of NegP. It is proposed that the specifier of NegPprovides an A-position in which NPs may be Case-checked. S-structureCase-checking is reflected in agreement marking on the negative head. Evidencefor LF Case-checking in this position is derived from the Case-licensing ofdirect objects in negated clauses in Colloquial Welsh and Russian. Definitenesseffects are analyzed as due to constraints on an additional Case-licensing optionrequired if negation blocks Case assignment under govemment. Variations inagreement patterns in affirmative and negative relative clauses in Literary andColloquial Welsh are attributed to the barrier status of the head of NegP.
•
•
•
RÉSUMÉ
Cette thèse entreprend de raffiner notre compréhension des propriétéssyntaxiques de la négation phrastique. Les analyses qui y sont proposées sesituent à la jonction d'innovations récentes dans les théories du cas, de l'accord,et de X-barre, dans le cadre de la théorie du Gouvernement et du Liage. Le casest apparié à une configuration de spécifieur-tête chaque fois que cetappariement est possible, et l'accord est analysé comme l'effet d'une opérationde vérification casuelle en structure-S. Cette thèse adopte comme point de départl'idée que l'inventaire des catégories fonctionnelles disponible dans laGrammaire Universelle inclut un Syntagme de Négation (NegP).
Au cours de cette étude, certaines propriétés syntaxiques seront attribuées à latête et au spécifieur de NegP. TI sera avancé que le spécifieur de NegP contientune position-A dans laquelle le cas des NP peut ètre vérifié. La vérificationcasuelle en structure-S se manifeste par une marque d'accord sur la tête négatif.Des arguments en faveur de la vérification casuelle en LF (pour forme logique)seront basés sur la légitimation casuelle des objets directs des propositions niéesen gallois familier et en russe. Les effets propres aux noms définis serontattribués à des contraintes sur une option supplémentaire de légitimation casuellemise en oeuvre lorsque la négation bloque l'assignation du cas dans une relationde gouvernement. Les différences de marques d'accord que l'on trouve dans lespropositions subordonnées affirmatives et négatives en gallois littéraire etfamilier seront attribués au statut de barrière de la tête de NegP.
•
•
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSJ would first Iike to thank my thesis supervisor. Mark Baker. tirst ti.)r his
important contributions to this work in the form of advice and criticism. and equallyfor pmviding momentum when things bogged down. and for occasionally remindingme what my thesis was abo:lt when J wandered too far down other paths. Mark sets astandard in his own work which J could not hope to achieve. but this thesis improvedgreatly in the anempt. J have also benefited a great deal from conversations with peoplewho have suggested revisions to the analysis. helped me with the data. or just listenedpatiently to my ramblings. J would Eke to take this opportunity to thank SoniaAlberton. John Eobaljik. Maria Babyonysllev. Orly Cohen. Nigel Duftield. BrendanGillon, Steve Harlow, Paul Law. Alan Libert, Carol Neidle. Elizabeth Pearce. LjiljanaProgovaç, Alain Rouveret. Benjamin Shaer. Ur Shlonsky, Knut Tarald Taraldsen. LisaTravis, Hubert Trockenbrod. Daniel Valois. and Raffaella Zananini. Special thanks inthis regard go to M:l:ire Noonan. with whom 1 developed the basis for the analysis ofrelativization in Literary Welsh given in Chapter 2. Working with M:l:ire was bathenlightening and fun, and J look forward to future col13borations! J follow the McGilItradition of being endlessly grateful to Zofia Laubitz. for editing beyond the cali ofduty. Thanks also to Jean-François Prunet for helping with the French abstracto 1 amalso very grateful to my Welsh informants, John Williams and Ewen Edwards. and toTatyana Petrova and Evgyeni Tomov, for their help with the Russian data.
The people J want to thank here do not fall neatly into categories; many havebeen important to me not just as colleagues but as friends. For always being willing todiscuss anything under the sun, even occasionally linguistics, J would like to thankMengistu Amberber, Cathy Burns, Ted Caldwell, Mark Campana, Alan Juffs. ZOiiaLaubitz, Alan Libert, John Mathews, Alison Mitchell, and Milire Noonan. Last but fart'rom least, l'd like to thank Anna Maclachlan and Benjamin Shaer, for being wonderfulfriends, occasional sparring partners, and always supportive. Profs Nicole Domingueand G1yne Piggon also deserve special thanks for their kindness and encouragementover the years.
FinaIly, 1 would like to thank my wonderful sisters, Jennifer and Elizabeth, andmy 'extended' family; Andrew, Rodolfo, Mariela, and Thomas and Hilda G., for theirlove and encouragement.
Thomas, What cao 1 say? Words are inadequate, but perhaps appropriate in thecontext of a linguistics dissertation. Thank you for being strong when 1 wasn't, forheing encouraging when 1 felt overwhelmed, and for laughing at me, or with me, asneeded, and, in short, for everything. 1couldn't have done it without you.
The research presented here was carried out with the financiaI assistance of aSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, forwhich 1 am very gratefuI. 1 would aIso like to express my gratitude to McGilI GraduateFaculty and the McGilI Post-Graduate Students' Society for travel grants whichpermined me to present sOrne of these ideas at the 27th Regional Meeting of theChicago Linguistics Society in 1991 and at the Colloque Internationale de la Négationat l'Université de Paris X (Nanterre) in 1992.
This thesis is dedicated, with love, to my parents.
•
•
•
Inspector Tiger: This house is surrounded. l'm afraid 1 must not askanyone to leave the room. No, 1 must ask nobody...no, 1 must askeverybody to .. .1 must not ask anyone to leave the room. No one mustbe asked by me to leave the room. No, no one must ask the room toleave. 1...I...ask the room shaH by someone be left. Not. Ask nobodythe room somebody leave shaH 1. ShaH 1 leave the room? Everyone .must leave the room...as it is...with them in it. Phew. Understand?
Agatha Christie Sketch. The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus:AIl the Words Vo/wne 1.
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CHAP1"ER 1: INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 11.1. Introductioo 11.2. A Note on the Fnunework and an Introductioo te the D.ta ......................•......... 31.3. The Syntaetic Treatment of Sentential Negation: Recent Proposais ...•......•............ 7
1.3.1. Pollock (1989): Verb-Raising and Agreement •....•...............•................. 91.3.2. Chomsky (1989): Neg.tion and Syntaetic Affix.tion ...••......•................... 151.3.3. Ri.zzi (1990): Negation as an A·-Spccifier.....••...........•........•................ 171.3.4. 0uha11. (1990): The Neg Par.uneter.....••............................••.............. 221.3.5. 1le11etti (1990): Negation as a Clitic in ltalian .......••..••......•........••...••.... 231.3.6. Lalca (1990): Neg as the Head of Sigma·Phrase ••.........••......•................• 261.3.7. Zanuttini (1991): Negation and Tense •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27
1.4. Summary 301.5. Endnotes te Cbapter 1 32
2. CHAP1"ER 2: NEGATION AND RELATIVlZATION lN LITERARY WELSH••••••••••••••• 342.1. Introduction •••••..••••••••....•••••....•••.....••......••••...........•..••......•.......•.....•... 342.2. Initial Paraliigm •......•..••••••..•.••••.....••....•••••.....••.••......••.....•....••••.....••.... 34
2.2.1. Two Relativization Strategies.•.••..•.•••.....••••••••..•....•...••......•....••.....•.• 342.2.2. Negated Relative Clauses .••••••••.••••...••••.•.......•.•.•...••.....••..........••.... 37
2.3. Some Initial Facts about Welsh Syntax •.••...•••••.........••.......•....••....••••..•••...... 382.3.1. Word Order and Constituent Structure in Welsh 382.3.2. Agreement and Null Arguments in WeIsh 412.3.3. Wh-<iuestions and Cleft Constructions 452.3.4. Picd-Piping and Complementizer Selection 482.3.5. "True" Island Constraints 492.3.6. Summary••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 50
2.4. Previous Analyses ofRelativization in Welsh: The Emply CategoryPrinciple ••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.••••••••.....•••.•.......••.....••......••.....••... 54
2.4.1. Introduction •.••••••••..•••••..••••••.••••....••••••••••..••..•••..••••...••••••..••••..... 542.4.2. Harlow (1981): The Emply Category Principle 552.4.3. Sadler (1988): A Coojoincd ECP ••••.••..••••••••••.••••.••...••••...•••••.•.•••...•.. 632.4.4. Rouveret (1990): A Barriers Approacb 672.4.5. Summary•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 74
2.5. A New Proposai ••••••••••••••.••••...•••••..•••...•••••••.....••••••••.••.....•.•.....•••..•.•.••. 762.5.1. Introduction ••••••••.•••••••••••..•.•••.•••••••.•.•..••••••....•••...••••.••••••..•••••.... 762.5.2. Tbeoretical FllIIIIOWOrk••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••.•••••••.••••••.••••....•••..•••••• TI
2.6. Agreement in Relative Clauses•••••.•••••••••••...•••••••••.•.••••••.••••••••••.•••••...•••••... 882.6.1. Background•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••...••••.•••...•.•••..••.•••..••••.•••••••••••....••• 882.6.2. Deriving the Distinct COmplementizers••••••••••••••...••••.•••••..•••••..••..••••••• 912.6.3. Deriving the Indirect Pattem 932.6.4. Deriving the Direct Pattem 972.6.5. Wh-Questions and C1efls: The "Indirect" Complemeotizer withthe "Direct" Agn,ement Pattem 1002.6.6. Long-Distance Relativization lOI
2.7. Case-Licensing in Spec/NegP in Matrix and Relative Clauses 1052.7.1. Negatcd SubjectRelatives lOS2.7.2. Negatcd Object Relatives: No Agreement and a ResumptiveProooun StIategy 109
i
..
•
•
2.7.3. Negated Object Relatives: Agreement on Negation and aResumptive Pronoun Stralegy III2.7.4. On the Autonomy of Neg as a Case-Li=sing Head 1152.7.5. Other Pre-Sentential Markers in Welsh 1232.7.6. Problems with Long A-cllains 1292.7.7. Conclusion 130
2.8. EndnoleS to Chapter 2 131
3. CHAPTER 3: SUBJECT-aBJECT ASYMMETRIES AND DEFINITENESSEFFECTS IN THE GENITIVE OF NEGATION IN RUSSIAN•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 138
3.1. Introduction 1383.2. Initial Paradigm 139
3.2.1. Intransitive Sentences: D-Structure Grammatical Relations andthe Geniti"e of Negation 1403.2.2. Optionality and (In)definiteness Effecls 1423.2.3. Summary 143
3.3. A Previous Analysis: Pesetsky (1982) 1443.3.1. C-seIection ofNPs vs. QPs 1443.3.2. Case-Assi:;nment ••••••••....••••...•.••..••••.•••..••.....•••.....••••.•••••.••...••••.•• 1463.3.3. Optiona\ity and Interpretation of Genitive NPs 1483.3.4. Problems with the Treatment 149
3.4. Part 1: Structural Restrictions on the Genitive of Nel,'lltion 1513.4.1. Introduction 1513.4.2. Russian Phnlse SlnL:ture 1533.4.3. Position of NegP 1533.4.4. Case-Assignment under Go\=ent in Nep!ed Sentences 1583.4.5. Structural Constnùnls on Genitive of Negation 1663.4.6. Supporting Evidence 1763.4.7. Conclusion to Part 1 180
3.5. Part 2: Definiteness Effecls Associated with the Genitive of Negation 1823.5.1. Introduction 1823.5.2. Dealing with the Concept of (In)definiteness 1823.5.3. Definiteness and the Accusative-Genilive Alternalion 1863.5.4. The Properties of FP 1883.5.5. A Problem: Obligatory Genitive ofNegalion 1913.5.6. Indefinite NPs as Vsriables. Negation as an ()perator 193
3.6. Summary 1983.7. Endnoles to Chapter 3 198
4. CHAPI'ER 4: CASE-LlCENSING, 'EMBRACING' NEGATION, ANDDEFINITENESS IN COLLOQUIAL WELSH••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 202
4.1. Introduction 2024.1.1. Word Order in Colloquial Welsh 203
4.2. Sentential Negation in Colloquial Welsh 2064.2.1. Two Negative madcers••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2064.2.2. Sentential Negation vs. constituent Negation 2074.2.3. Preposition Insertion in Negated Sentences 2084.2.4. The Status of the Pte- and Post-Verllal Negative Marlcers 210
4.3. Sentential Negation and Tense in Colloquial Welsh ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2114.3.1. Infinitivals ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2124.3.2. Past Participles••.•••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2134.3.3. Absolute Constructions•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 215
il
,•
•
•
4.3.4. Imperatives ........•....................................................................... 2164.3.5. COnclusioQ 218
4.4. Sentential NegatioQ and Case in CW 2194.4.1. Negate<! Relative Clauses in ew 2194.4.2. Subjoct-object Asymmetries and Case in Negated Clauses in ew 2244.4.3. Medial Negation as a Banier te Ca....-Assignmeat 2274.4.4. Case-Licensing of VSO Direct Objects 2304.4.5. (ln)definiteness Revisite<!: Case-licensing in SpecINegP '" 2314.4.6. Variable Word-order in Pembrokeshire Welsh 235
4.5. Summary...•.••....••.•......•.....•.............•.•..•............................................. 2374.6. Endnotes te Cbapter 4 ......••....•...••...............•.......................................... 238
5. CONCLUSION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 243
APPENDIX: NEGATION AS HEAD AND SPECIFIER OF NEGP 247
REFERENCES..........••••••••.••••..••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••.••...••••...••...••.•••....•.•.•••...••...•.•..••• 252
ili
•
•
•
1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. INTRODUCfION
In this thesis, 1 address the problem of defining the syntactic nature of
sentential negation. Two of the major disputes concerning this issue are its
categorial status in X-bar theory and where it is generated relative to other
components of a sentence. In an attempt to elucidate these and other questions, 1
examine syntactic processes which appear to be affected by sentential negation
in Standard Literary Welsh, Colloquial Welsh, and Russian.
Languages appear to use one of three distinct devices for marlàng
sentential negation: negative verbs, negative particles, and negative derivational
morphemes. Sometimes the use of one of these devices is accompanied by a
secondary modifiQltion in the sentence being negated. Payne (1985, section 2.4)
mentions (i) changes in word order, (ü) changes in tone, (ili) neutralizations of
tense distinctions, (iv) supporting verbs, and (v) changes in noun Case, all
trlggered by negation. This thesis deals in large part with a secondary
modification not mentioned by Payne; changes in agreement patterns.
In this study, 1 focus on changes in Case, agreement, and word order
trlggered by sentential negation in Welsh and Russian. Under the theoretical
assumption that word order and agreement changes can be related to Case, 1
propose an analysis of sentential negation which accounts for bath ways in
which it can interfere with and ways in which it can facilitate case-licensing. 1
adopt the proposal that the inventory of functional projections made available
cross-linguistically includes a Negation Phrase (NegP). Facilitation of case
licensing is related to the additional specifier position generated. Interference is
1
• related to the barrier that negation may create for verb-raising or for Case
assignment under government. However, where negation is affixal. its blocking
effect can be neutralized by syntactic incorporation derived by head-to-head
movement.
In the first chapter, a brief introduction to sorne recent proposais
regarding the syntactic nature of sentential negation is presented. This discussion
is intended te give the reader an idea of both the kinds of proposais that have
been made and the kind of argumentation used.
In the second chapter, 1 introduce the problem of negation triggering
changes in agreement and relative clause formation in Welsh, and review
previous analyses of these facts. In the context of an analysis of the role played
by sentential negation, revisions are proposed to the treatment of wh-movement
and agreement. It is argued that it is not necessary to maintain the traditional
distinction between direct and indirect strategies of relativization in that
language. Rather, the distinct complementizers and agreement patterns exhibito:d
with relativization out of different positions within the sentence reflect the S
structure Case-licensing configurations; configurations which are altered by the
presence of sentential negation. The phenomenon of agreement surfacing on the
negative marker is analyzed as reflecting a Case-checking procedure in a
Specifier-head configuration established at S-structure, made possible by the
[+Case] specification of the head of NegP.
In the third chapter, the phenomenon of Genitive Case triggered by
sentential negation in Russian is addressed. 1 argue that this can be accounted
for under the assumption that the specifier of sentential negation provides an
extra position for LF Case-checking. Evidence is presented te support the claim
2
• that the head of NegP can Casc-license an NP independcntly of the [Case]
specification of the verb. This analysis allows us to derive the lack of verbal
agreement with NPs in the Genitive of Negation, the unmarked word order of
the Genitive-marked NPs in these constructions, and the correlations between
Case-marking and (in)definiteness in negated clauses.
In the fourth chapter, 1 extend the c!..i"lS concerning the interaction of
negation and Case by considering the syntax of sentential negation in Colloquial
Welsh (CW). The first part of this chapter addresses the relationship between
sentential negation and Tense; 1 present arguments to support the c1aim made by
Zanuttini (1991) that NegP cannot be generated in a clause that does not include
a Tense Phrase (TP). 1 then argue that the interference of negation with Case
licensing of the direct object follows from the presence of the clause-medial
negative marker, which blocks Case-assignment under government te an NP
lower in the structure. Based on data from Pembrokeshire Welsh, 1 will then
argue that, as in Russian, the specifier of NegP provides an additional Case
licensing position for NPs.
1.2. A NOTE ON'IBE F'RAMEwORK AND AN INTRODuCTION 1'0 THE DATA
In the framework which we will, for lack of a better terrn, refer te as
Chomskian Syntax, it is not uncommon te come across an introductery
statement in a paper to the eftect that "sorne standard version of
GovernmentlBinding theory will he assumed". As frustrating as it may be for
readers, there are certain understandab1e motivations for such a statement.
Generative linguistics is still very much in evo1ution. Many aspects of the
theory, bath peripheral and fundamental, are subject te serious inquiry and
reanalysis. And, commonly, tinkering may he carried out in one area that need
3
• not have any repercussions on other aspects of the gr4Jllmar. It is possible to
concentrate on a small area in order to determine whether it may eventually shed
light on other questions. Except where more recent innovations are adopted (i.e.
regarding the theory of Case), what follows will assume a version of syntacùc
theory as described in Chomsky (1986a).
The first paradigm to be discussed in this thesis is taken from Literary
Welsh (LW). LW is traditionally described as having two distinct relativizaùon
strategies called the direct and indirect strategies, each of which is associated
with relativizing out of certain positions within the sentence. In the direct
strategy, the particle a precedes the relaùve clause. As shown in (1)-(2), an
verb does not exluoit agreement with the relativized NP.
instance of subj~ ~ativization, there is a gap in the relativization site, and the
• (1) y dynioni a ddarllenodd [eli y llyfrthe men Fr read-3sg the bookthe men tJuu read the book
[Harlow 1981:237]
(2) *y dynioni a ddarllenasant [eli y llyfrthe men Fr read-3pl the book
In the indirect strategy there is still a gap in the relativization site which,
as in the direct strategy, cannot be filled by a pronominal, but we find
agreement appearing on the head goveming the relativization site. In this case,
the particle that precedes the relative clause is y(r).\ This is illustrated in (3)-(4),
where a periphrastic direct object is relativized.
4
•
•
•
(3) Yllongi y gwnaeth Sion ei werthu [e]ithe boat PT did John 3sgm-sellthe boat thaI John soM
[Harlow 1981:236]
(4) .y llongi y gwnaeth Sion gwerthu [e]ithe boat PT did John sen
An interesting effect is induced by negating a relative clause. In cases
which nonnally require the direct strategy, e.g. subject re1ativization, negating
the relative clause appears to force the indirect pattern; agreement with the
relativized NP subject is obligatory. This is shown in (5)-(6).
(5) Ydynioni na ddarllenasant [e]i y llyfrthe men Negread-3pl-past the bookthe men thal didn 'r reat! the book
[Harlow 1981 :237]
(6) *y dynioni na ddarllenodd [e]i y llyfrthe men Neg read-past the book
The second paradigm to be discussed cornes from Russian, where
negating a clause appears to alter the Case-assigning properties of the sentences.
If we take as an example a regular transitive verb, the direct object nonnaily
surfaces with Accusative Case. When the sentence is negative, the direct object
may surface either with Accusative or Genitive Case. This is illustrated in
(7)_(9).2
(7) ja vizu kniguI-NOM see book-ACC1see the book
s
•
•
(8) ja ne vizu knigiI-NOM Neg see book-GEN
(9) ja ne vizu kniguI-NOM Neg see book-ACC
[Neidle 1988:34]
An interesting wrinkle involves the interpretation of thesc sentences; if
an NP that could surface with Genitive Case appears instead with Accusative
Case, that NP tends to be interpreted as definite. In this way, an ambiguity with
respect 10 definiteness that is present in affmnative sentences in Russian can be
removed in a negated sentence, as shown in (10)-(11).
(10) ja ne vizu knigiI-NOM Neg see book-GEN1don 'c see aiche book.
(11) ja ne vizu kniguI-NOM Neg see book-ACC1 don'c see the book.
[Neidle 1988:34]
The final set of data that will be analyzed cornes from negation in
Colloquial Welsh, which differs in certain interesting ways from Literary
Welsh. First, it requires an additional negative marker, similar 10 French pas in
distribution and placement, and second, a 1exkal item appears preceding the
direct object in negated sentences. This item is not found in the corresponding
LW sentences, as shown in (13).
6
• (12) Phalodd John ddim *(0) 'r ardd.Neg-dug-3sg John Neg PT the gardenJohn didn 't dig the gartien.
[Jones & Thomas 1977:323]
(13) Ni phalodd John yr ardd.Neg dug-3sg John the gardenJohn didn't dig the gartien.
This set of faets interaets with the Russian data in that the preposition
does not surface in CW when the direct object is indefinite.
(14) Rosim i ddim lliw ynddo ariodNeg-put-1sg 1Neg color in-3sgm ever1didn '( put coloring in it ever.
[Awbery 1990:6)
These faets show sentential negation interaeting with Case and agreement
and suggest that this interaction is sensitive te the notion of (in)definiteness.
This work is offered as a contribution both te work on the syntactie
nature of sentential negation and to the analyses of the phenomena affected by
negation in the languages under consideration. In the context of a proposaI that
sentential negation can project its own phrase, positive revisions te the analyses
of the parachgms under discussion in WeIsh and Russian are facilitated.
1.3. THE SYNTAC11C TREATMENT OF SENTENTIAL NEGAll0N: RECENTPROPOSAIS
The syntactic status of sentential negation is currently the focus of much
attention. Until very recently, X-bar theory was questioned primarily along
certain well-defined lines; specifically, there was a debate as te whether X-bar
7
• should or ~hould not be restricted to binary branching, whether all languages
instantiate the same projections, and whether all languages reflect the same
hie..-archical ordering of projections. However, the inventory of functional heads
which could project phrases was generally held to he constant: Infl(ection), and
Comp(lementizer). When Abney (1987) proposed a new functional category,
D(eterminer) Phrase, this initiated the most recent wave of proposed revisions to
X-Bar Theory: debates as to the number and kind of functional categories made
available by Universal Grammar (UG).
In keeping with Baker's influential proposai that word-formation can
take place in the syntax (syntactic iru:orporation, Baker (1985), (1988», new
functional projections headed by affixal morphemes have been proposed to
account for morpheme ordering. Since affixation, under this treatment, can he
derived via head-to-head movement, these morphemes took on head status. The
order of morphemes within a given lexical item provided one motivation for
ge.'1erating the new phrases in a particular relation to one other.3 In other cases,
new functional projections have been proposed in order to provide a new
landing site for movement Qohnson (1990), Mahajan (1990».
Although one might expect widespread repercussions in other areas due
to the introduction of these new phrases, this is not necessarily the outcome.
While the introduction of a new head can potentially introduce an additional
barrier for XP-movement, the specifier position projected by the head can
provide a compensating escape hateh. Furthermore, if a lower head incorporates
into the head of one of these new phrases and carries it along as it is raised
further, the phrase will not constitute a barrier for antecedent govemment by
s
•
•
•
that head. This follows from the definition of minimality in the ECP, combined
with the fact that the potential intervening heads are traces of the mised head.
One of the most influential recent proposais regarding functional
categories is due to Pollock (1989): that IP, which previously illCluded both
tense and agreement, should be separated into two separate functional
categories, Tense Phrase (TP) and Agreement Phrase (AgrP). In the sanIe
article, he maintained, following Kitagawa (1986), that X-bar should include an
additional functional projection, Negation Phrase (NegP).
Of primary concem to this thesis is this proposed NegP. Below, 1 outline
proposais regarding this projection made by Pollock (1989), Chomsky (1989),
Belletti (1990), Ouhalla (1990) and Zanuttini (1991). 1 will also outline Laka's
(1990) proposai that Neg is one potential head of the functional projection
Sigma-Phrase, and Rizzi's (1990) analysis of sentential negation, in which he
proposes an analysis of Ross's Inner Island Constraints (Ross 1984) induced by
negation without involàng a NegP. In more recent work, however, he has
adopted a NegP; in fact, it plays an important role in his analysis of inversion
triggered by affective variables in English (Rizzi 1991).
The papers discussed below address more than just the role of sentential
negation. However, 1 will limit the discussion here to a few core facts that will
serve to illustrate the main claims made by these researchers with respect 10 the
syntactic status of sentential negation.
1.3.1. PoLWCK (1989): VERB-RAlSING AND AGREEMENT
Pollock proposes a more highly articulated structure for IP than had
previously been assumed, in which the formerly dual-headed phrase is separated
into a Tense Phrase (TP) and Agreement Phrase (AgrP). He also proposes that
9
• negation heads its own projection, Negation Phrase (NegP). These projections
are generated in the relative order shown in (15).
(15)
Pollock's article addresses certain surface differences between French
and English, including the placement of adverbs with respect to verbs and the
required insertion of do in English negative and interrogative sentences, as
illustrated by the sentences below.4
(16) Jean n'aime pas Marie.*John likes not Mary.John does not like Mary.
(17) Aime-t-il Marie'?*Likes he Mary'?
(18) *Jean souvent embrasse Marie.John often kisses Mary.
(19) Jean embrasse souvent Marie.*John kisses often Mary.
Pollock claims that the differences illustrated above relate in large part te
verb-movement in these languages, which is sensitive te the transparency or
10
• opaciry of Agreement (Agr). A raised verb can only assign its theta role from
inside a transparent functional category.S It is then proposed that Agr in French
is transparent, and therefore alIows a theta-assigning verb to raise to it. In
English, however, Agr is opaque, 50 V-raising is limited to non-theta-assigning
verbs: have, and be.
The claim that only non-theta-assigning verbs can raise to Agr in English
accounts for the relative order of verbs and adverbs. On the assumption that
these adverbs are generated adjoined to VP, theta-assigning verbs such as làss
should occur to the right of the adverb, as in (18), above. Non-theta-assigning
verbs raise to Agr, and appear to the left of adverbs.
1.3.1.1. NEGAnON AND DO-SUPPORT IN ENGUSB
An additional difference between French and English addressed by
Pollock is that the phenomenon of do-suPPOTt (the occurrence of a dummy verb
carrying tense features) is found only in the latter.
(20) Jean n'a pas chanté.John did not sing.-John not sang.
Pollock's analysis treats V-to-T raising as obligatory. He derives this by
the requirement that [+tense], identified as an operator, must bind a variable,
which is provided by the trace of V-movement. According to Pollock, English
sentences which do not include an auxiIiary have or he are confronted with the
problem of providing such a variable. He proposes that this requirement can be
met in affirmative sentences by a phonologically null verb do, which raises to T.
11
•
•
•
In negative sentences, a potential barrier. NegP. intervenes between T
and Agr, which induces an Empty Category Principle (ECP) violation for
raising at Logical Form (LF) after syntactic affix-Iowering. Only a lexical verb
can L-mark NegP, neutra1izing its barrierhood. sc in a negative sentence with a
null do the trace of V would not satisfy the ECP. Instead, negation forces do to
have lexical content.
In essence, then, sentential negation projects a functional phrase NegP,
the head of which constitutes a potential barrier for antecedent govemment of a
trace by a raised head. This barrier can be neutra1ized by L-marking, but L
marking can only be effected through a lexical, phonologically 'rea!' verb, not
by the phonologically null counterpart of do which is found in ordinary
affirmative sentences.
Pollock crucially distinguishes the negative marker not from negative
adverbs such as rarely or never. He defends the special status attributed to not in
English as the head of a maximal projection, NegP, by noting that other
(negative) adverbs do not interfere with LF V-raising. Thus, while sentence (21)
below is ungrammatical without do, the sentences in (22)-(24) with a negative
adverb do not require it.
(21) *John not left the children a1one.
(22) John did not leave the children a1one.
(23) John never left the children a1one.
12
•
•
(24) John rarely left the children alone.
Thus, the principle evidence for an analysis of a negative elemen~ as ti:e
head of NegP is its interaction with head-movement.
1.3.1.2. 'EMBRAONG' NEGATION AND FIN1TE VS. NON FIN1TEVERBS
Sentential negation in French requires two markers, ne and pas.6 This
has been referred to as embracing negation, because the negative markers appear
on either side of the tensed verb. Pollock analyzes these as the head and
specifier of NegP, respectively. Since pas is in the specifier of NegP (therefore
to the left of ne, on the assumption that specifiers are ta the left in French
phrase structure), Pollock must aceount for the fuct that this order of negative
markers is never instantiated in the data. He accounts for this by attributing
clitic status to the head ne; as a clitic, it is forced ta raise to T, a position ta the
left of the specifier of NegP. Thus, the second essential claim regarding
sentential negation in French is that ne in French is a clitic.
The marker ne precedes bath finite and non-finite verbs in French.
However, pas follows the finite verb and precedes the non-finite verb.
(25) Jean D'aime pas Marie.Jean Neg-love-3sg Neg MarieJean does nollove Marie.
(26) *Jean ne pas aime Marie.
13
• (27) Ne pas sembler heureux est une condition pour écrire desromans.Neg Neg seem-[-finite] happy is a prerequisite write-[-finite]novelsNot to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.
(28) *Ne sembler pas heureux [...]
He accounts for the different word order found in finite and non-finite
negative clauses by having the verb raise over Neg to T only in the former case;
in non-finite clauses, the verb remains in Agr ("short movement"). Ne, due to
its clitic nature, raises to T independently of verb-raising. These two possible
landing sites for verb-movement, made available by the proposai that IP is
separated into TP and AgrP, are crucial factors in his account. The alternative
derivations are represented in (29).
(29)
ne
t
Agr1
V -finite
There is an additional variation in French infinitival constructions. Thus,
(30a) be10w is a possible version of (30b), but (31a) is not an acceptable variant
of (31b).
14
• (30) a.b.
(31) a.b.
n'etre pas heureuxne pas etre heureuxnot 10 he happy.
*ne sembler pas heureuxne pas sembler heureuxnot 10 seem happy.
Interestingly, the distinction found between theta- and non-theta
assigning verbs in English is found here in French infinitival constructions.
Only auxiliary verbs allow the order [ne-V-pas] in infinitivals. Pollock handIes
this distinction by analyzing [+finite] tense as strong and [-finite] tense as weak,
these being analogs for T of the notions transparency and opaqueness for Agr.
Only non-theta-assigning verbs raise to [-finite] tense. This accounts for the
difference in acceptability between the sentences above.
1.3.2. CHOMSKY (1989): NEGAnON AND SYNTAcnC AFFIXAnON
Chomsky's paper is primarily conœrned with investigating the tapic of
XO-movement as it relates ta word formation. He takes the position that
inflectional morphology derives from V-raising ta 1 and/or I-lowering ta V
(affix hopping).7 He adopts Pollock's articulated phrase structure, with a TP
dominating a NegP dominating an Agreement Phrase, but introduces a second
agreement phrase, above TP. He claims that the higher AgrP is associated with
subject agreement (AgrSP) and the lower AgrP with object agreement (AgrOP),
for example, the object agreement on past participles triggered by clitic climbing
in French (Kayne 1991). Like Pollock, he analyzes not as the head of NegP.
The relative order of projections is illustrated in (32).
15
• (32)
v
His paper does not introduce any new treatments for negation per se, but
I will briefly describe his explanation for the required do-support in negative
sentences in English, below.
• 1.3.2.1. Do-SUPPORT IN ENGUSB
Recall that Pollock maintains that V-raising is instantiated in ail English
sentences, but that this raising is invisible in the case of simple non-emphatic
affirmative sentences, which generate an empty do under Agt that then roses to
T in order ta provide a variable for the [tense] operator ta bind. In a negative
sentence, the NegP aets as a barrier for government of the trace in Agr unless it
is L-marked by a lexical (non-empty) do. Chomsky's analysis of non-emphatic
affirmative sentences does not invoke a phonologically empty do. The question
for Chomsky is why, in negative sentences, do-insertion is required, instead of
affix-Iowering followed by LF raising, eliminating the improper chain.
Chomsky claims that negation, in combination with affix-Iowering,
creates an Empty eategory Principle violation al LF. In an affirmative sentence,
the iIl-formed chair. created by affix lowering can be repaired by raising the
16
•
•
•
verb with its affIxes back ta T al LF. This LF raising is blocked by the presence
of negation. At LF, the [verb+affIxes] cannot raise from the lower Agr over
Neg ta T without leaving behind a verb trace that is not properly govemed.
Chomsky must then explain why verb-raising to Agr and then to I,
crossing Neg, is possible when the verb is an auxiliary, as in the sentence John
Ms not written books. If Neg blocks LF raising ta repair an ECP violation
created by affIx-Iowering, why does it not block overt raising ovèr Neg? He
daims that this difference results from a distinction between which traces are
deletable al LF. An Agr trace is assUIr.ed to be deletable, but a V-trace is not.
The trace dominated by Agr left by raising an auxiliary verb over Neg to I is an
Agr-trace, deletable at LF, but the trace in the same position left by raising of
the [V+affIx] complex at LF is a V-trace (under the assumption that this
process involves substitution, not adjunction), which cannot be deleted. Thus,
ooly in affIrmative sentences can such LF-raising apply in order ta correct ECP
violations; in a negative sentence, the trace in Agr would be blocked from
antecedent govemment by Neg.
Chomsky's analysis is driven by a principle of the grammar which forces
the least 'costly' derivation ta talœ place, wherever two derivations are possible.
In the case of negative sentences in English, the less costly derivation (using an
LF raising and traee-deletion strategy) is impossible, 50 a language-specific rule
of do-insertion is required.8
1.3.3. RJzzI (1990): NEGAnON AS AN A'-SPEOFIER
Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1989) focus on the head status of
sentential negation in French and English in arder ta derive an apparent
blocking effect of negation on head-movement. Rizzi, on the other band,
17
• working within a revised analysis of minimality barriers, examines data which
lead him to postulate that negation in these languages is an A'-specifier. 9
1.3.3.1. RELATIVlZED M1NIIIfAUTY
•
•
Rizzi proposes a conjunctive formulation of the ECP, such that a trace
must simuitaneously fulfiII a formai licensing requirement and an identification
requirement.
[W]e may think of the theory of each type of nuII elements asconsisting of two components: A principle of formai Iicensing,which characterizes the formai environment in which the elementmay be found, and a principle of identification [...] whichrecovers sorne contentive property of the nuII element on thebasis of its immediate structurai environment. [Rizzi 1990:32]
The identification requirement may be fulfùled by government from an
actual antecedent or from a theta-marking head.
(33) CONJOINED ECP:A nonpronominal empty category must be(i) properly head-governed (formallicensing)(ii) antecedent governed or theta-governed (identification)
Proper head government is government by a head within its immediate
projection. Theta-government is government by a theta-assigner (e.g.
government of an object by a theta-assigning verb). Antecedent government is .
government by an antecedent (an eIement that govems and binds the governee).
Rizzi further proposes that the concept of minimality described in
Chomsky (1986a) shouid be reIativized, such that only a lypicaI potential
governor creates a barrier for government. A few definitions are required here.
(Rizzi 1990: 6-7)
18
• (34) RELATIVlZED MINIMALITY:X CL-govems Y only if there is no Z such that(i) Z is a typical potential CL-govemor for Y(ü) Z c-eommands Y and does not c-eommand X
(35) TYPICAL POTENTIAL GOVERNOR:
1. Head-governmenr.Z is a typical potential head govemor for Y, Z is a headm-eommanding Y
2. Antecedent governmenr.Z is a typical anteeedent govemor (TAG) for Y, Y in :(i) A-chain: = Z is an A-specifier c-eommanding Y(ù) A'-ehain:= Z is an A'-specifier c-eommanding Y(üi) XO-ehain: = Z is a head c-eommanding Y
(36) HEAD GoVERNMENT:X head govems Y iff
(i) X e{A,N,P,V,Agr,T}(ù) X m-eommands Y(m) no barrier intervenes(iv) re1ativized minimality is respected
(37) ANTECEDENT GoVERNMENT:X anteeedent govems Y iff
(i) X and Y are co-indexed(ù) X c-eommands Y(m) no barrier intervenes(iv) relativized minimality is respected
Rizzi proposes that sentential negation in English is a potential
A'-anteeedent (thus a potential anteeedent governor which creates a barrier only
for A'-ehains). He uses this 10 account for the observation that negation appears
10 affect adjunet extraction capabilities: Ross's Inner Island Constraints.10 The
19
•
•
•
effect of negation is illustrated in (38)-(39), where the affinnative sentence has
two possible readings, while the negative sentence has only one.
(38) It is for this reason that 1 believe John was fired.[1 believe irfor this reason, or he wasjiredfor this reason)
(39) It is for this reason that 1 don't believe John was fired.[Only: 1don'r believe irfor mis reason)
In the first sentence, the adjunct can be construed with either the main or
the embedded clause. In the second sentence, the adjunct can only be construed
with the main clause. This is accounted for by the relativized notion of
antecedent govemment as follows: Adjunct traces are not theta-govemed; hence,
they rely on meeting the antecedent govemment requirement in order to satisfy
the identification requirement of the conjoined ECP. Negation, an A'-specifier,
counts as a potential antecedent govemor which blocks antecedent govemment
of the adjunct trace in the lower clause by creating a minimality barrier. Since
the presence of negation ruIes out a co-indexed trace of the adjunct in the lower
clause, the negated sentence can only be interpreted as having the adjunct trace
in the higher clause, above the negative operator.
Rizzi's analysis of negation as a specifier is compatible with the proposaI
that the negative market heads an a'Jtonomous projection, NegP, only ifpas and
nor are analyzed as the specifier, not the head, of NegP. The facts described by
Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1989), which they analyze in part as resulting
from a barrier created by the head ofNegP, receive a different treatment.
Under the assumption that non-lexical verbs can raise to 1 in English, but
that for lexical verbs affix-Iowering is required, (a pattern claimed by Pollock to
20
• result from the opacity of English agreement, which restricts V-raising to non
theta-assigning verbs), Rizzi takes the acceptability of sentences like those in
(40)-(41) be10w 10 support the fuct that negation, conttary 10 the claims of
Pollock and Chomsky, does not create a barrier for antecedent government by a
head.Il
(40) They should [not have left]
(41) They have [not t left][Rizzi 1990:22]
Rizzi notes what he refers 10 as a residual blocking effect of negation on
the association of the inflectional morpheme with a lexical verb in English.
• (42) abcd
John smokes.*John smokes not.*John not smokesJohn does not smoke.
[pol1ock 1989:23]
•
Accepting the widespread assumption that the we11-formedness of (42a)
involves affix-hopping, the ill-formedness of (42c) seems to indicate that an
intervening negation rules out a derivation involving affix-Iowering, forcing the
operation of the Ianguage-specific rule of do-insertion. He accounts for the
observation that negation blocks affix-Iowering but not regular V 10 1 movement
as follows. Essentially, Rizzi concurs with Chomsky and Pollock that negation
creates a barrier forli raising (the repair strategy for constructions that include
affix-Iowering), but not for V-raising prior 10 LF.
21
• Under the assumption that [tense] is 'operator like'. a c1aim alse made
by Pollock (1989), Rizzi accounts for this by arguing that the verb inflected for
tense adjoins 10 IP at LF, an instantiation of operator movement. This
adjunction creates an A'-chain at LF, which is necessarily affected by an
interVening negation (a typical potential A'-anteeedent). The verbal trace cannot
be anteeedent govemed, and the structure violates the ECP.
1.3.4. OUHALLA (1990): THE NEG PARAMETER
Ouhalla's paper proposes that, cross-linguistically, the sentential negation
marker can be either a head or a specifier of NegP. He alse c1aims that the
position of NegP is pararneterized such that it can appear above TP or above
VP. These possibilities are instantiated cross-linguistically as below. The two
components of sentential negation in French, ne and pas, are the head and
specifier of NegP, respective1y.
OverTP:SpeclNegP: Swedish, FrenchHeadlNegP: Berber, French
OverVP:GermanEnglish, Turkish
According te Ouhal\a, the morphological nature of negation alse plays a
role in the syntax. In Berber and Turkish, negation is affixal, forcing an XO
(e.g. verb) 10 taise 10 it.12
In a language where the negative marker is a head, he proposes that there
is an empty operator generated in the specifier of NegP. If the negative marker
is a specifier, an abstraet morpheme is generated in the head position. Ouhal\a's
analysis requires the assumption that an empty operator in specifier position
22
• induces a violation of relativized minimality, but an abstraet morpheme in head
of NegP does not.
1.3.5. BELLETII (1990): NEGATION AS A CLlTlC IN ITALIAN
BelIetti (1990) analyzes the sentential negation marker non in Itallan as
the head of NegP. Based on the order of inflectional morphoiogy, Belletti
reverses the order of TP and AgrP proposed by Pollock, but follows Pollock in
generating NegP between the twO. 13 Also in agreement with Pollock, she
derives the position of negatior: with respect to the verb in ltalian in part by
attributing eUtie status 10 non. As sueh, by assumption, it must raise, via head
to-head movement, and adjoin to the head of the highest funetional projection,
AgrP. Verb-raising, following Rizzi & Roberts (1989), is taken to be an
instance of substitution, not adjunetion, where inflectional morphology within
the verb derives from substituting the verbal roct for a slot subcategorized for
by the morphology.
The verb can raise from T 10 Agr over Neg without violating the ECP
because of the nature of Agr. BelIetti adopts Moritz's (1989) proposaI that
antecedent government holds between two ehains whieh share the sarne hcad.
The antecedent-government relation whieh is required 10 hold between any two
members of a chain is defined in terms of non-distinetness from the indexation
of the head of the chain. The Agr node created by head-to-head movement
carries the index of bath the raised Neg and the raised V. Thus, in example
(43), antecedent government h01ds between the trace [toi) and the trace [t-k).
23
• (43)
NP Agr-i-k
AAgr-i Agr-k
1 1
i !
toiGianni non·j parla-k
t-k
v
t·k
Belletti also extends the role of NegP by allowing adverbs of the type
piu, mai, ancora (anymore, never, yet) to raise to the specifier position created
by the negative projection.14 Note, however, that these negative adverbial
elements differ from pas in French in their optionality. These adverbs can
otherwise appear in the specifier of VP, resulting in the order illustrated by
sentence (45), below.
• 1.3.5.1. NEGAlIVE ADVERBS
(44) Gianni non ha piu parlatoGianni Neg has more talkedGiQ1l1Ù bas Mt talked arrymore.
(45) Gianni non ha parlato piuGianni Neg has ta1ked moreGiQ1l1Ù bas Mt talked arrymore.
[Bel1etti 1990:33]
24
•
•
Given that the past participle mises to AgrO, a sentence with the
negative adverb following the past participle bas the negative adverb in
speclVP, as shown in (46).
(46)
NP
Gianni
non
present
avere
-tlo) V
piu parla
According ta Belletti, the V, and the clitic head of NegP (non), raise ta
the head of the highest functional projection which makes up Infl. Since NegP is
immediately below the highest Infl projection, and negative adverbs are in
speclNegP, the word order exhibited in these sentences is as expected.
2S
• 1.3.6. LAKA (1990): NEC AS THE HEAD OF SIGMA-l'HRASE
•
Laka, working primarily on English and Basque, proposes thal the
invenlory of funetional categories available eross-linguistically ineludes a Sigma
Phrase, whieh can be headed by either Neg or an emphatie marker.15 SigmaP is
generated above TP in English. The relative order of the negative marker and
the tensee! verb at S-strueture is derived via a proposee! universal condition, the
Tense C-Command Condition (TCC), whieh forces T to e-command all
propositional operalors of the clause al S-strueture. This forces the [V+Tl
complex to adjoin 10 SigmaP, and precede the negative marker.
Her arguments for this proposal inelude the observation thal negative and
emphatie markers are in complementary distribution. Thus, as noted by Klima
(1964), they cannot co-occur in English, and b"th require either an auxiliary
verb, a modal, or do•
(47) 1 didn'l, as Bill had thought, go to the store.
(48) 1 DID, as Bill had thought, go to the store.
(49) *1 DID not, as Bill had thought, go to the store.
When both EMPH and Neg are present, negation is analyzed as
constituent negation. This is supported by the faet that it does not allow wide
scope over a universal quantifier in subject position, as shown be1ow.
(50) AlI of them did not go to the store.[For aIl X. X did not•.• OR For no X. X did••• ]
26
• (51) AlI of them DID not go to the store.[only For ail X, X did ooc... ]
Furthermore, Laka demonstrates that EMPH and Neg trigger identical
syntaetic effects, reflected in do-support in English, and AUX-raising in
i3asque. She derives the required do-support found in negative sentences from
the combined effect of the Tee and the base-positions of NegP and TP. She
maintains that affix-lowering is not permitted in negative sentences, because it
would result in Tense not c-commanding Neg, a propositional operator. Instead,
the dummy verb do is inserted under T.
1.3.7. ZANUITINI (1991): NEGA110N AND 1'ENsE
Restricting her study 10 Romance languages, Zanuttini (1991) proposes
that sentential negation in a given language can be distinguished along two Unes.
First, a language may have either the functional projection NegPl or NegP2,
which differ in their selectional requirements. NegPl is restricted 10 sentences
that instantiate a TP. This allows her to account for an interesting range of facts
involving constraints on the type of constructions in which a given type of
sentential negation can occur. Second, NegP in a given language is generated
either above or below TP. She further allows the negation marker 10 be
generated in either the head or the specifier of NegP.
1.3.7.1. THE CIme STAnJS OFNEGA110N
Zanuttini analyzes a given negative marker as a head if it interferes with
clitic-climbing, and as a specifier if it does nol Although she concedes that
there may be good arguments for analyzing ne as a clitic in French, she claims
(contra Belletti 1990) that the negative clements in other Romance languages
27
• (Spanish no, ltalian non) do not pattern with clitics with respect to syntactic
behaviour. She bases the claim that the negative particles in Spanish and ltalian
are not clitics on the following arguments.
First, pronominal clitics in these languages cannot normally bear stress,
unIess in a context of 'repair' .
(52) Non GU, ma LE ho parlato.not to-him, but to-her have-lsg spoken] have spoken not ta hùn, but ta her.
The negative particles can, however, bear stress, without the context of
repair.
(53) Preferirei NON farlo.prefer-lsg-cond Neg do-it]'d rather not do it.
Second, as shown in (54) below, the order V-ADV-clitic is
ungrammatical in ltalian, but the order V-ADV-negative marker illustrated in
(55) is marginally acceptable.
(54) *Essendo di certo vi un dottore...being for sure CL a doctorThere cenainly being a doclor•••
(55) ?Essendo di certo DOD un dottore.••being for sure Neg a doctorThere cenainly not being a doclor•••
28
•
•
•
Third, pronominal clitics precede a finite verb and follow a non-finite
verb, but the negative marker always precedes the verb, whether it is finite or
not.
(56) E meglio non parlarleis better Neg talk-to-herIr's better Mr ro ralk ro her.
(57) E meglio che non le parliis better that Neg to-her-talklr's better that 1don 'r ralk ro her.
Fourth, she makes the argument that, whereas the respective ordering of
pronominal clitics varies from language to language in Romance, the negative
marker consistently appears before the pronominal clitics. For example, in
ltalian the order 3rd DAT clitic preceding ACC clitic is exhibited, but French
exhibits the reverse order. ln both languages, however, Neg (Mn and ne)
precedes the pronominal clitics.
These facts, though interesting, do not rule out the possibility that the
negative marker is also a clitic. Her first argument, that the negative marker cao
be stressed even outside of a context of repair, is weakened by the fact that a
context of repair seems to be present in these cases as well, the difference being
that the context is pragmatic. Negative sentences cao be seen as denials of their
affirmative counterparts. As such, a pragmatic context of repair is always
possible for these utterances.16 Generally, stressing the negative marker is
appropriate ooly in a situation where the speaker is contradicting a contextual
affirmative presupposition.
29
• 2anuttini's second argument, regarding the relative order of adverbs and
clitics vs. adverbs and the negative marker, is weakened by the fact that the
negative marker in these sentences is conceivably a constituent negator, adjoined
10 the NP un doaore, in (55). The pronominal clitic vi (there) cannot be
associated with an NP in this way. If this is the case, the ungrammatica1ity of a
structure where vi appears between an adverb and an NP is not surprising.
The other arguments put forth by 2anuttini with respect to word order
are also conceivably compatible with an analysis of the negative ma-ker as a
clitic, if it is base-generated in a position distinct from tlle argument clitics. In
this way, if the negative marker were generated above the landing site of both
finite and non finite verbs, one would expect it to precede both. Argument
clibes, on the other hand, would be generated within VP, and their final
position might vary with respect 10 finite and non-finite verbs.
Although 2anuttini's proposal that the negative markers in Romance are
not clities may weIl be correct, these arguments do not appear 10 constitute a
decisive argument against the clitic analysis adopted by Pollock (1989) and
Belletti (1990).
1.4. SUMMARy
This review of recent proposals regarding NegP ilIustrates the various
claims researchers have made, the justification for them, and the data they are
claimed 10 account for. Fïrst, evidence for the status of negation consistently
involves its blocking effect on movement. Thus, if negation interferes with head
movement (either verb-raising or clitic-climbing) it may be analyzed as a head.
If it does not interfere with head movement, or if (under Rizzi's relativized
30
• minimality) it interferes primarily with non-argument XPs, it may be analyzed
as a specifier.
Consistently, the negative marker in the languages studied, which
include ltalian, Spanish, French, English, Basque, Turkish, Berber, Swedish,
and German, appears 10 bear a strong affinity with the verb. This relationship is
derived in a number of ways. ProposaIs include (i) its affixal nature (forcing the
verb 10 raise 10 support it), (ù) its clitic nature (forcing it 10 raise 10 the highest
functional head dominating it, which may be the position that the verb also
raises 10 for independent reasons), (m) the requirements of the Tense C
Command condition (which force T 10 :aise to Neg after the V raises to 1'), or
(iv) its base-generated position, immediately dominating TP, the S-structure
position of the verb.
Clearly, these proposaIs regarding the syntactic nature of negation are
inseparabIe from analyses of the constraints on syntactic movement in generaI.
In this thesis, the interaction of sentential negation with syntactic movement will
play an important roIe, but evidence as to its syntaetic status as a maximal
projection will be derived primarily from its interaction with agreement
processes and Case-assignment. Evidence for this position will be derived from
changes in agreement patterns in relative clauses and from agreement marking
surfacing on the head of NegP in Literary WeIsh; from changes in Case
marking, agreement, and word order in Russian; and from variations in the need
for a:1 additional Case-assigner in ColloquiaI WeIsh.
31
•
•
•
1.5. ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 1
IThc panidc yr surfaces as y whcn prcccding a conson.~nl·inilial word.
20u.: 10 a lack of the appropriale 'J'mbols on my wordproce."",r. certain palataliz.edRussian consonanlS may be repre.<én!ed as coronals. Thus. [z] repre.<énl' both [z] and [tl. [siboth [sI and ["s'J. and [cl both [cl and [:fI.
3The Mirror Princip/e: Baker (1985).
4Note that the ph~omcnon of a ~"Upportive verb n:quired in negativc scntt:nC~ i~ notlimiled 10 English. In Chukchee, for ""ample, the verb 10 he is added 10 negative dalL"'-', and inother languagéS "ith"r he or ha,'t! funclions as a support v"rb (Payn" 1985).
5 Th" proposai thal V-raising is d"P"Rdenl on wh"th"r Agr is Iransparenl or opaquefor theta-assignméOl will nol play a roI" in this théSis, and a more detailed d=riplion ofPollock's analysis will tak" us far from the SlIbj,,"1 al hand. Th" inl"resled reader is ref"rred 10Pollock's articl".
&rh" n"g'dliv" mark"r ne is OftéO dropped in conl"mporary s'JlOken French.
7Th" diff"renC" beIWeen V raising to INFL and INFL low"ring 10 V was inlroducedby Emonds (1976) 10 accounl for th""" diff"rencéS belWeen French and English.
8No!" thal this only follows on th" assumplion that any langu..i;~ '1"'Cific rul" ofinsertion is inœrenUy more costly !han a d"rivation which involvéS 10WérÎng followed by LFraising, s.,., C.L. Bak~r (1991) for an all"mativ" ViéW, in which d"riving th" faclS ofdo-supportvia languag"-spéCific ruléS is argued to ""lIlt in a simpl"r grammar. takéO as a whol". Oea1ingOnly with facls of English, Baker propoSéS a languag~ific rul" which disallows v"rbs fromraising over the negative adv..m nor. Do-support is required to support!lon.<è morphology.
9Although the anaIysis in Rizzi's monograph dOèS not includ" a cal"gory N"8P, hedOèS allow for the possibility that the negalive markers in English and French (nol and pas) arein fact in spéCifier of NegP (Rizzi 1990:115; tn 15). What is crucial for his trealméOt is not theexistenC" ofa proj""tion N"8P. but that the negative marker be a poléntial A'-anl..cedéOl.
10Ross (1983). Noté that th""" eff,,"lS are not restricled to SéOléntial negation.Compare the following IWO senlénces. the latter of which is limited 10 a reading where theadjunct is construed with the higher clallSlO: Il was for lhis /'t!QSon lhot everyone heUeves lharJohn was fired, Il was for lhis reason lhar no one heUeves John was fired. Rizzi suggèSlS thationer island eff,,"lS are d~ned by 'affective' operators (Klima 1964. Batwise and Coop.".1981). defined as eleméOlS that cao (a) license negative polarity itéms and (h) trigger subjo:,AUX inversion in English (Liberman 1974): Under no circumslances will 1 go vs. ·Under nocirCumslances 1 will go. s.,., Rizzi (1990: 19 ft) for discussion, and Rizzi (1991) for a moredeveloped treatment which relatéS inversion in th""" caséS to inversion in wh'iJUcstiODS. Notéalso that negative adverbs like seldom and never. which give rise to ioner island constrainls,apparenUy allow affix-hopping derivations. Rizzi arguéS that, unIike nol. these adverbs cao
32
•
•
surface in pre-INFL position. They therefore need not inlervene between the raise<! verb and itsl.'aCe al LF (Rizzi 1990: 116, fil. 18).
lIAccording ID Pollock (1989) ana Chomsky (1989), the barrierhood created by thebead of NegP is voided in these examples via L-marking of NegP by the verh in T. The negativemarker nol is, nevertbeless, a potential barrier for bead-movement for these authors, and thisdistinguishes their anal:, ses froID that of Rizzi (1990).
120uhalla's analysis explicitly disallows syntaetic lowering.
13Zanuttini (1990:38) suggests that an unfortunale result of Belletti's analysis is thatthe AgrP node is required in arder ID derive the correct word order in French (the negativeclement ne preceding the negative clement pas) even in infinitivals, which do not exhibitagreement features.
lolne suggestion that certain clements must he in Spec/Negp, either al S-structure oral LF, is also maintained by Zanuttini (1991), Haegeman (1991), Haegeman & Zanuttini (1991),and Rizzi (1991). These proposais will he discussed in greater detail in the Appendix, withrespect ID secondary negation markers in Colloquial We1sh.
ISI will mention only the English data bere. In Basque, Laka's evidence comes fromAUX-fronting triggered by both EMPH and NEG, and by their complementary distribution.
16ne view that a negated sentence can he analyzed as the denial of an affirmativesentences bas a long hislory. Sec Hom (1989: Chapter 1 and elsewbere) for a review ofarguments that negated clauses are subordinate, in this sense, ID their affirmative counterparls, asweil as arguments against this view.
33
• 2. CHAPTER 2: NEGATION AND RELATIVIZATION IN LITERARYWELSH
2.1. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, 1 introduce a paradigm where sentential negation appears
10 trigger changes in relative clause fonnation in Literary Welsh (LW). Negated
relative clauses differ from their affinnative counterparts with respect 10
complementizer selection and agreement. The fucts that will be accounted for
are presented, and three previous analyses are reviewed. It will be shown that
certain problems associated with these analyses can be eliminated under an
analysis that includes the functional projection NegP. Evidence for the role both
of the head and the specifier of NegP will be presented.
2.2. lNmAL PARADIGM
2.2.1. TwO RELAnvJZAnON STRATEGIES
2.2.1.1. Tm: D1RECI' STRATEGY
Welsh is traditionally described as having two distinct relativization
strategies. The tirst or direCl relativization strategy is required when the
relativized argument is a subject or the direct object of a verb inflected for
tense. The pre-sentential particle is a, and agreement cannot mark the site of the
relativized argument. This strategy is illustrated in (1).
(1) Y dynion a ddarllenodd [el y llyfr.lthe men PT read-past the bookthe men who read the book
34
• (2) *y dynion a ddarllenasant [el y Ilyfrthe men PT read-3pl-past the book,he men who read the book
However, it is not possible te capture the class of arguments for which
the direct strategy is available purely by referring te the grammatical functions
subject and direct object. A relativized subject is not accessible te the direct
strategy if a clause intervenes between the head of the relative clause and the
extraction site. Furthermore, the direct object in a periphrastic sentence, !bat is,
a sentence of the form AUX-S-V-O, is also not accessible to the direct strategy.
The periphrastic direct object immediately follows an untensed,
([-finite]) verb, which itseif follows the subject. The untensed verb is
traditionally referred to as a verbal noun (VN). It appears as the final verbal
element in periphrastic sentences where an auxiliary verb carries the tense
marking, as weil as in [-finiœ] clauses. VNs differ crucially from tensed verbs
in the realization of agreement. While VNs surface with object but not subject
agreement, tensed verbs surface with subject but not object agreement. 1 will
refer te the arguments of tensed verbs and VNs as VSO direct objects and
periphrastic direct objects, respectively, for ease of exposition. An example of a
periphrastic sentence is given in (2a).
(2a) Mae Sion yn ddarllen y llyfr.is-3sg John PROG read[-finite] the bookJohn is reading the book.
Subjects relativized across an intervening clause and periphrastic direct
objects require the indirect relativization strategy, described below.
3S
• 2.2.1.2. THE INDIRECT STRATEGY
•
The indirect strategy is required when the relaùvized argument is the
complement of a preposition, a noun, or a [-finite] verb. In this strategy. the
pre-sentential particle is y(r), and there is obligatory agreement marking the site
of the relativized argument. This strategy is illustrated in (3).
(3) Yllong y gwnaeth Sion ei werthu [elthe boat PI' did-3sg John 3sg selllhe boat Ùlal John soM
(4) *y llong y gwnaeth Sion gwerthu [elthe boat PI' did-3sg John selIthe boat Ùlal John soM
Although subjects usually require the direct pattern, the indirect pattern
is required if a clause intervenes between the head of the relative clause and the
clause containing the relativized position, even if the relativized position is a
subject or the direct object of a tensed verb. This is illustrated in (5)-(6).
(5) Ydynion y dywedodd Sion y darlIenasant [el y lIyfrthe men PI' said-3sg John PI' read-3pl the bookthe men who John said read lhe book
(6) y dyn Ygwn Ygwel Wyn eCthe man PI' know-lsg PI' will-see-3s Wyn himthe man Ùlal 1 laww HjIn will see
36
• 2.2.2. NEGATED RELATIVE CLAUSES
•
Sentential negation in LW takes the fonn of a pre-verbal negative
particle. Of particular interest 10 this investigation, negating a relative clause
appears 10 force the use of the indirect relativization strategy in Welsh. Thus, in
the case of subject relativization, agreement with the relativized argument is
obIiga1Ory if the relative clause is negated.
(l) y dynion na ddarllenasant [el y llyfrthe men Neg read-3pl [el the bookthe men who didn 't read the book
(8) *y dynion na ddarllenodd [el y llyfrthe men Neg read-3sg [el the bookthe men who didn't read the book
In the case of direct objects, the negative relative differs from the
affirmative in that an independent pronominal can, and in fact must, appear in
the relativization site. In this way, an asymmetry Iacking in affirmative relative
clauses is present in negative relative clauses. Whereas the subject exhibits the
so-caIIed indirect strategy, the object has the sarne charaeteristics as an
unreIativized direct object: an obligatory in situ pronominal. This contrast is
shown in (9)-{lO).
(9) *y llyfr na ddarllenais i [elthe book Neg read-lsg 1the book which 1didn't read
37
•
•
(10) Yllyfr na ddarllenais i efthe book Neg read-1sg 1 itthe book which 1didn 't read
[Sadler 1988: 128)
However, negated direct object relatives allow a second possibility. In
these sentences, an agreement marker surfaces on the negative marker na itse1f.
If such an agreement marker occurs, then the pronominal may drop.
(11) Y llyfr nas ddarllenais i efthe book Neg-3rd read-1s 1 (it)the book which 1didn 't read
[Sad1er 1988: 113)
Before reviewing the ways in which previous researchers have dealt with
these data, 1 will present a brief description of some aspects of the syntax of
Welsh which are relevant for the analyses of this paradigm.
2.3. SOME lNmAL FACTS ABour WELSII SYNTAX
2.3.1. WORD ORDER AND CONS'ITlUENT STRUC1lJRE IN WELSII
Welsh is a head-initial language; within a phrase, the head normal1y
precedes its complements and modifiers. Thus, the head precedes the possessor
in a possessive construction (PC), prepositions precede their objects in a
prepositional phrase (PP), anà ~e head of a relative clause (Re) precedes the
relative clause (fallerman 1991:311).
(12) NP [[ci) [bach])dog smallasmaIldog
38
• (13) PC [(ci] [Gwyn]]dog GwynGlryn'sdog
(14) PC [[[ci] [bach]] [y meddyg]]dog small the doctorthe doctor's small dog
(15) PP r[yn] [yr eglwys]]in the churchin the church
(16) RC y dyn [[y] [mae Wyn yn ci weld [el]the man [C was-3sg Wyn PROG 3sg see]the man thalll)ln was seeing
Verbs take a full NP direct object in post-head position.
(17) VP Roedd hi'n [[gweld] [y dyn]].was-3sg she-PROG [see the man]She saw the man.
As mentioned above, Welsh sentences display two basic sentence
patterns, VSO in simple sentences and AUX-S-V-O in periphrastic sentences. In
the latter, the second verbal element appears without tense marlâng. .
(18) Darllenodd Sion y llyfr.read-3sg John the bookJohn retJd the book.
39
•
•
•
(19) Mae Sion yn ddarllen y llyfr.is-3sg John PROG read the bookJohn is reading the book.
One of the problems raised by VSO languages for GB theory is that the
elements associated with the VP appear to be discontinuous. This led to claims
that these languages do not instantiate a VP constituent. Following proposaIs by
McCloskey (1983) for Irish and Harlow (1981), Sproat (1985), and Sad1er
(1988) for Welsh, 1 will assume that Welsh is underlyingly SVO, and that the
surface V-;nitial order is caused by raising of the leftmost verbal element in
order to support tense morphology.2 The [-finite] verbal elements remain in
their base-position in VP. A [+finite] S-structure is illustrated below,
abstracting away from complexities introduced by additional functional
categories.
(20)
[verb[tensell
t NP
,,
1._._._._.
As predicted under such an analysis, we find VSO order in tensed
clauses, but SVO order in untensed clauses.
40
•
•
(21) Bwriadai 'r athro i ['r plant ddarllen llyfr ara1].intended the teacher to [the children read book other]The teacher imended the children to read another book.
[Rouveret 1990:59]
(22) Darllenodd y plant y llyfr.read the children the bookThe children read the book.
[Rouveret 1990:48]
As a variant of the VSO sentence, the verb gwneud ('do') may carry the
tense features, while an uninflected lex;cal verb remains within VP.3
(23) Gwnaeth John ennill.did John winJohn won.
Note that, unlike English do-support sentences, such sentences in We1sh
are not emphatic. They appear to be synonymous with the simple VSO
structures. There is, however, a slight tendency in Colloquial Welsh ta use VSO
ta refer to future tense, and the periphrastic structure to refer to present tense (J.
Williams, p.c.).
2.3.2. AGREEMENT AND Nuu. ARGUMEN'IS lN WELSH
2.3.2.1. Nuu. SUB.JEcrs
•
In common with the other Ce1tic languages, We1sh is a null-subject, or
pro-drop language, with a rich system of agreement marking. A null-subject
language is one in which the subject of a tensed clause may be non-overt. In GB
theory, lexical requirements (subcategorization and theta-assignment) of
predicates must be met at each syntaetic leve1. This requirement, which provides
41
•
•
a fundamentaI part of the motivation for the theory of empty elements, is known
as the Projection Principle. The Extended Projection Principle (EPP) combines
this with the requirement that all clauses have subject!.. This requirement
captures a basic asymmetry between NP and S: subjects may be freely omitted
in NP, but are required in S even when they are not assigned a theta-role by the
predicate.
(24) NP John's claim that the police are responsiblethe claim that the police are re.<;ponsible
(25) S It is believed that the police are responsible.*Is believed that the police are responsible.
The ability of a language to drop subjects in tensed clauses is a locus of
parametric variation. Taking the perspective of a functional definition of empty
categories, we will follow Chomsky (1982) in assuming that the empty element
in null subject constructions has all the properties of a pure pronominal, that is,
an element with the feature specifl:-->tior.. [+pronominal,-anaphoric], which, like
overt pronouns, occurs in governed positions. A pronoun may be non-overt
under certain specific conditions, i.e. if governed by ricn agreement.
In Welsh, verbs that are [+tense] necessarily exhibit person/number
agreement with a pronominal subject This agreement permits but does not force
the pronominal ta be null.4
(26) Maent (hwy) yn canu.is-3pl (they) PROG singThey are singing.
42
• A tensed verb does not agree with a non-pronominal subject. Instead, we
find default 3sg agreement.
(27) Mae Yplant yn canu.is-3sg the chiIdren PROG singThe children are singing.
(28) *Maent y plant yn canu.is-3pl the chiIdren PROG singThe children are singing.
Thus, personlnumber agreement is in complementary distribution with
full lexical NP subjects, but is obligatory with pronominaI subjects.
2.3.2.2. 01lŒR NUIL ARGUMENTS
Not only tensed verbs, but prepositions, nouns, and [-finite] verbs aIIow
null arguments in Welsh. Just like tensed verbs and subjects, these heads must
exhibit agreement morphology if their complement is pronominaI (null or
overt), and cannot exhibit agreement if their complement is a non-pronominaI
lexical NP. Agreement on the head permits a pronominal complement 10 be
null.
The form agreement takes depends on properties of the lexical head
itseIf. In a possessive construction, formed in Welsh by placing the head noun
before the possessor NP, a clitic agreeing with the personlnumber features of
the (pronominaI) possessor appears 10 the immediate left of the possessum.
(29) Brynais i *(ei) dy (el).bought-lsg 13sg house (him)1boughl ms house.
43
•
•
Object agreement on a verb uninflected for tense features (VN) also
surfaces as the same form of the clitic, which occurs to the left of the VN.
(30) Mae Wyn wedi ·(ei) weld (ef).is-3s Wyn PERF 3sg see (him)~n Juzs seen mm.
Many prepositions are inflected for the personlnumber features of their
pronominal complement. As with all instances of clitics and agreement
inflection, the preposition must be inflected when it can be inflected; otherwise,
the sentence is ungrammatical.
(31) Soniais i amdano (ef).spoke-Isg 1 about-3sg (him)1spoke about him.
(32) ·Soniais i am (ef).spoke-lsg 1 about (him)1spoke about mm.
In these constructions, just as with tensed verbs, neither a c1itic nor
inflection can occur with a non-pronominal lexical NP.
(33) Mae Rhys yn (·ei) gweld Megan.is-3sg Rhys PROG 3sg see MeganRhys is seeing Megan.
(34) Brynais i (·ei) dy Sion.bought-lsg 1 3sg house Sion1bought Sion's house•
44
• (35) Soniais i am (*amdano) Sion.spoke-lsg 1about (about-3sg) Sion1spoke about Sion.5
Not all prepositions in Welsh have inflected (synthetic) forms. The non
inflecting prepositions take neither a pre-head clitic nor agreement morphology;
as expected, a pronominal argument of one of these prepositions cannot be
dropped. This is shown in (36)-(38).
(36) Euthem i a Mair i'r sinema.went-ls 1 with Mary 10 the cinema1 wenr wirh Mary to the movies.
(37) Euthem i a hi i'r sinema.went-ls 1 with her to the cinema1 wenr with her to the movies.
(38) *Euthem i a [el i'r sinema.1 wenr with her to the movies.
The parallels between the clities that appear on VNs and Ns and the
agreement inflection that surfaces on tensed verbs and inflecting prepositions are
clear. However the phenomenon of null subjects in Welsh is 10 be analyzed, the
analysis should be extendable 10 other null arguments.
2.3.3. WS:-QUES110NS AND CLEFT CONSTRUcnONS
•Wh-questions and clefts in Welsh pattern with relative clauses with
respect 10 the pre.sentential particle (a or y(r) and the pattern of agreement.
Thus, when the extraction site is in local subject or VSO direct object position
4S
• in these constructions, there is an empty category in the extraction site and the
pre-sentential partic1e is a.
(39) SUBJECTA. RELATIVE CLAUSE
Ydyn a ddarllenodd [el y llyfr ar y trenthe man PT read-3sg the book on the trainthe man who read the book on the train
B. WH-QUESTION
Pa ddyn a ddarllenodd [el y lIyfr ar y tren?which man PT read-3sg the book on the trainWhich man read the book on the train?
•C. CLEF!"
Y dyn a ddarllenodd [el y lIyfr ar y tren.the man PT read-3sg the book on the train(It was) the man who read the book on the train.
•
(40) DIRECT OBJECTA. RELATIVE CLAUSE
Yllyfr a ddarllenodd y dyn [el ar y trenthe book PT read-3sg the man on the trainthe book t1uJl the man read on the train
B. WH-QUESTION
Pa llyfr a ddarllenodd y dyn [el ar y tren?which book PT read-3sg the man on the trainWhich book did the man read on the train?
46
• C. CLEFT
y llyfr a ddarllenodd y dyn [el ar y tren.the book PT read-3sg the man on the train(It was) the book tJuu the man read on the train.
[Sadler 1988: 163-166]
•
If the extraction site is a periphrastic direct object, the object of a
preposition or in a possessive NP, relatives, clefts, and wh-questio!lS aIl exhibit
properties of indirect relatives: the pre-sentential particle is y(r), and agreement
marks the ext.-action site.6
(41) PREPosmONALOBlECTA. RELATIVE CLAUSE
Ytren Ydarllenodd y dyn Yllyfr amo [elthe train PT read the man the book on-3sgthe train tJuu the man read the book on
B. WH-QUESTIONPa tren Ydarllenodd y dyn Yllyfr amo [el?which train PT read the man the book on-3sgWhich train did the man read the book on?
-.
C. CLEFTy tren Ydarllenodd y dyn Yllyfr amo [el.the train PT read the man the book on-3sg(It was) the train thal the man read the book on.
[Sadler 1988:165]
(42) POSSESSlVENPA. RELATIVE CLAUSE
Ydyn Ygwelais i ei fab [elthe man YI' saw-ls 1 3sgm sonthe man whose son 1 saw
47
• B. WH-QUESTION
Pwy y gwelais i ei fab [e]?who PT saw-1s 1 3sgm sonlWwse son did 1see?
•
c. CLEFT
y dyn Ygwelais i ei fab [el.the man PT saw-1s 1 3sgm son(Il was) the man wJwse son 1sGW.
[Sadler 1988: 164]
2.3.4. PlED-PlPING AND COMPLEMENTIZER SELECTION
As shown above, questioning and clefting an NP in Welsh patterns with
relativization structures with respect 10 agreement and type of pre-sentential
partic1e. However, while a relative clause cannot be headed by a PP, a PP can
be c1efted or questioned; !hat is 10 say, pied-piping is pennitted. If a pp is
questioned or c1efted we find the y(r) (indirect pattern) comp1ementizer
occurring with the direct agreement pattern. Neither agreement nor a
pronominal marks the questioned or clefted site.
(43) PREPosmONAL PHRASESA. WH-QUESTION
[Ar ba tren] y darllenodd y dyn Yllyfr [el?on which train PT read the man the bookOn which train did the man read the book?
B. CLEFT
[Ar y tren] y darllenodd y dyn Yllyfr [el.on the train PT read the man the book(Il was) on the train thal the man read the book.
48
• These structures deviate from the usuaI pattern found with respect to
complementizer selection and agreement.
2.3.5. "l'RUE" IsLAND CONSTRAINTS
•
•
We have seen three agreement patterns in Welsh. First, in an
unrelativized structure, we find obligatory agreement with a pronominal
argument, the latter surfacing optionally. Second, in the direct relativization
strategy, we find that neither agreement-marking nor a full pronominal can
surface. Third, in cases of indirect relativization, agreement with the relativized
argument is present, but a pronominal cannot surface in the relativization site.
In this way, the indirect pattern differs from unrelativized arguments, whose
pronominal argument optionally co-occurs with agreement.
As noted by Tallerman (1983), the pattern associated with non
relativized contexts (obligatory agreement and optional surfacing of a
pronominal) is also found in some reIativized structures; specifically, if
relativization is out of a complex or conjoined NP. Compare the (a) sentences
below where an in situ pronominal is strongly preferred, with the indirect
strategy illustrated by the (b) sentences, where a pronominal is completely
ungrammatical.7
(44)
a. Dyma'r eneth garedig y diolchais i [iddi hi a'i thad].here-is-the girl kind that thanked-lsg 1 to-3sgf her and her fatherHere is the kind girl that 1 thanked (her) and herfather.
rrallerman 1983:202]
49
• b.
(45)
Dyma'r eneth garedig y diolchais i iddi (*hi).here-is-the girl kind that thanked-I sg 1 to-3sgf (ber)Here is the lcind girl tha! 1 thanked.
a. y dyn Yseniais [arndano ef ae Ann]the man comp spoke-ls about-3sgm him and An••the man tha! 1 spoke about him and Ann
[rallerman 1983:201]
b. Ydyn y seniais arndano (*ef)the man that spoke-lsg about-3sgm (bim)the man tha! 1 spoke abOut
2.3.6. ~y
These data should be addressed by an adequate analysis of relativization
in We1sh. The faets, whieh are quite complex, are summarized below. Although
the issues raised by sentential negation are critical to this thesis, the analysis,
incorporating as it does agreement and relativization faets, must handle the other
issues as we11.
(1) THE NEGATION IssUE: Negating a relative clause appears to forcethe pattern of agreement associateci with the indirect strategy forthose arguments that exhibit the direct pattern in affirmativerelative clauses.
y dynion a ddarllenodd [el y llyfrthe men PT read-3sg the bookthe men who reatf (he book
so
• y dynion na ddarllenasant [el y llyfrthe men Neg read-3pl the booklhe men wluJ didn '1 read lhe book
(D) THE Co-OCCURRENCE ISSUE: Whereas a pronominal argumentmay co-occur with agreement or a clitic in a simple sentence, itcannot co-occur with agreement or a clitic if the argument inquestion is relativized, clefted, or questioned.
Soniais i amdano (el).spoke-ls 1 about-3sgm (him)1spoke aboU/ him.
y dyn Y soniais amdano (.el)the man PT spoke-lsg 1 about-3sgm (*him)/he man lha! 1spoke aboU/
(ID) THE LACK OF AsYMMETRY Is..<;UE: With respect to agreementpatterns in affirmative relative clauses, subjects pattern with vsodirect objects.
y dynion a ddarllenodd le] y llyfrthe men PT read-3sg the bookthe men wluJ read the book
y llyfr a ddarllenodd y dynion le]the book PT read-3sg the men [elthe book t1wJ the men read
51
•
•
(IV) THE DIRECT OBJECT ISSUE: VSO direct objects require the directstrategy, but periphrastic direct objects require the indirectstrategy.
y 11yfr a ddar11enodd y dynion [e)the book PT read-3sg the men [elthe book tha! the men read
y l10ng y gwnaeth Sion ei werthuthe boat PT did-3sg John 3sg sel!the boat tha! John soM
(v) THE ASYMMETRY ISSUE: Although subjects and VSO directobjects pattern tegether in affirmative relative clauses, theyexhibit distinct agreement patt"'..rns in unrelativized contexts and innegated relative clauses. Subject agreement, '>ut never objectagreement, surfaces on a [+finite) vero. Thus, in a VSOstructure, a subject pronominal, but not an object pronominal,can be dropped.
Agoron (hwy) *(et).opened-3pI they itThey opened it.
In negated relatives, while the subject exhibits the agreementpattern associated with the indirect strategy, the VSO directobject patterns with unre1ativized structures in allowing apronominal te optionally double agreement.
y llyfr nas ddarllenais i (et)the book Neg-3sg read-lsg 1 (it)the book which 1didn 't read
52
•
•
(VI) THE NON-ARGUMENT IssUE: Questions and cleft constructions inWelsh pattern with relativization structures with respect toagreement and complementizer selection. However, if a pp isquestioned or clefted instead of an NP, then we find the yrcomplementizer (like the inclirect strategy) occurring with a lackof agreement (like the direct strategy).
PREPOSITIONAL PHRA.cES
Wh-question[Ar ba tren] y darllenodd y dyn Yllyfr [el?on which train Pr read the man the bookOn which train did the man read the book?
Cleft[Ar y tren] y darllenodd y dyn Yllyfr [el.on the train Pr read the man the book(It was) on the train tJuu the man read the book.
•
(vn) THE IsLAND CONSTRAINT IssUE: Indirect relatives must bedistinguished both from direct relatives and from cases ofrelativization out of complex and coordinate NP structures. Thelatter, which 1 will refer to as true islands, differ from both directand indirect relativization in permitting (and, in fact, preferring)an in situ pronominal to co-occur with agreement.
Dyma'r eneth garedig y diolchais i [iddi hi a'i thad].here-is-the girl kind that thanked-lsg 1 to-3sgf her and her fatherHere is the kind girl tJuu 1 thanked (her) and herjarher.
S3
• 2.4. PREvIouS ANALYSES oFRELATIVIZAnoN IN WELSH: THE EMYIT
CATEGORY PRINCIPLE
2.4.1. INTRODUcnON
In many previous analyses of relativization in Welsh, the differences
between the distinct pre-sentential particles and agreement patterns in direct and
indirect relativization are derived by proposing distinct syntactic processes.
Based on the intuitive observation that the indirect strategy seems to be required
when the relativization site is 'farther away', the required agreement marking is
taken to indicate that no movement has taken place.8
Awbery (1976), for example, captures the distinction by claiming that
only the direct strategy involves a movement transformation. Under her
approach, negative relative clauses formed on subject and direct object positions
are taken ta be non-movement cases, unlike their affirmative counterparts, since
the indirect pattern of agreement is employed.
Commonly, in previous analyses, the apparent correlation between the
pre-sentential particles and the distinct agreerr.el;t patterns is treated as causal.
The particle a, associated with the direct pattern, is treated as in sorne way
forcing or licensing a gap in the relativization site. The particle y(r), associated
with the indirect pattern, occurs when a gap is not permitted in the relativization
site.
Recent analyses of relativization in Welsh carried out in the Govemment
and Binding ftamework share certain features. They generally invoke sorne
version of the Empty Category Princïple (ECP) ta derive the complementarity
between the direct and indirect patterns of relativization. The definition of the
ECP bas evolved in certain essential respects since its inception, but consistently
• involves an asymmetry between subjects and objects. We will see that the faet
that subjects appear 10 pattern with direct objects in Welsh relativization raises
problems for analyses that derive the agreement patterns by a condition on
empty categories.9
1t has also been claimed that the structurai properties of Welsh are
significantly differer.t from those that have been proposed for other languages;
i.e. that heads do not project specifiers in Welsh (Rouveret 1990) or that Welsh
instantiates a structure-pruning mechanism at S-structure (Harlow 1981). These
revisions, proposed within an ECP-driven account of the relativization
strategies, are driven by the need 10 have subjects and VSO direct objects
pattern 10gether with respect 10 government, an unexpected fact if the ECP is
the crucial principle involved. The analysis that will be proposed in this thesis
will not require Welsh 10 be treated as exceptional with respect 10 any of the
major components of the theory.
Below, 1 outline three previous analyses of relativization in Welsh:
Harlow (1981), Sadler (1988) and Rouveret (1990). 1 will argue that certain
problems common to aIl three analyses follow from this assumption, and can be
eliminated by analyzing both the direct and indirect pattern as resulting from
wh-movement, leaving a trace in the relativized position. 1 will concentrate on
how these analyses handie the issues listed in (I)-(VII) above.
2.4.2. HARLow (1981): 'l'BE EM1'TY CATEGORY PRlNOPLE
Harlow assumes a fairly standard initiai phrase structure for Welsh,
given in (46). To derive the surface VSO order, Harlow maintains that the
leftmost verbal element moves up 10 [+tense] Infl.
55
• (46) a.b.c.d.e.f.
S"-> X" S' (where X"=~l', PP, VP, AP)S'-> CSS-> Infl NP VPVP- > V (NP) (PP)NP->NP (S')Infl-> {TENSE, Agr}
•
•
Harlow adopts Chomsky's (1981) formulation of the ECP and definition
of Govemment, given below. 10
(47) ECP: [el must be govemed.NP
cr. govems ~ iff cr. minimally c-eommands ~ and:a. cr. = N, V, A, P (=Iexical govemment)
or b. cr. is co-indexed with ~.
Where minimally c-eommands = cr. c-eommands ~ and there is noy such that cr. c-eommands y and y c-eommands ~ and X does notc-eommand cr.
Harlow mair.tains that languages which support empty subjects have an
indexed Agreement (Agr). Agr selects pro, a [+pronominal -anaphoric]
element, which is then deleted, leaving a co-indexed empty category. The rule
of pro-deletion is generalized from McCloskey's rule of relative deletion
proposed for Irish (McCloskey 1978:50).
Following pro-deletion, the resulting empty category is govemed by the
co-indexed Agr, satisfying the ECP. Harlow follows Chomsky (1981) in
extending this theory of agreement 10 object clitics, arguing that these are of the
form
(48) [Agr V] (Agr=clitic)V
•
•
•
The missing pronominal object is the consequence of strict
subcategorization for pro, indexing, and pro deletion. The [e] is properly
governed by the co-indexed Agr, in accordance with the ECP.
To alIow for the co-occurrence of agreement and a pronominal NP,
Harlow maintains that pro-deletion in WeIsh, unlike McCloskey's rule of
relative deletion in Irish, operates optionally. VSO direct objects cannot undergo
pro-deletion because they are not governed by Agr, 50 the resulting [e] would
violate the ECP.
(49) Darllenais [e] y llyfr.read-ls the book1read lhe book.
(50) Darllenais i ef.read-ls 1 it1 read il.
(51) *Darllenais i [e].1 read il.
Harlow's mie accounts for the possible co-occurrence of agreement and
pronominals in non-reIativized contexts, but fails te explain why, in the indirect
relativization cases, an overt pronominal cannot occur in the reIativized
position, doubling the agreement or clitic which he treats as pronominal (the Co
Occurrence Issue). Compare this with a nonrelativized context, in which
agreement on the preposition may co-occur with an overt pronominal NP.
57
•
•
(52) Soniais i arndano (et).talked-ls 1 about-3ms him1 taIked about him.
Harlow (1981:228) accounts for this by proposing that pro-deletion is
obligatory in relative contexts, provided that its output does not violate the ECP.
In this way, Harlow's rule of Relative Deletion is subject to exactly the sarne
conditions as pro-deletion, but it is obligatory, a theoretically problematic
notion.
Having argued for a rule in order to account for the obligatory missing
arguments in indirect re1ativization, Harlow proposes an analysis of the direct
strategy. Recall that the direct strategy is used for subjects and for direct objects
of finite verbs, and requires the pre-sentential particle a. Neither agreement nor
a pronominal can mark the relativization site.
According te his treatment of agreement, pro-deletion cannot apply to
non-relativized VSO direct objects because the resulting em;>ty category would
not be governed by Agr, in violation of the ECP. In direct relativization,
however, although no agreement elements are present to license [el, the
re1ativized position is obligatorily empty. Furtherrnore, the use of agreement to
license pro-deletion in subject position results in an ungrarnmatical sentence.
(53) *y ferched {y/a} aethant [el i Gaerdyddthe girls PT went-3pl [el to Cardiffthe girls thal wer.r to Cardiff
Harlow deals with this issue by claiming that it is the pre-sentential
element a itse1f that provides a governor for the ernpty category in subject and
VSO direct object positions. His proposai thus relies on treating the e!ement a as
fundarnentally distinct from y; whereas y is a complementizer, a is a pronominal
58
• element generated under C. Since the same pattern is exhibited for subjects and
for VSO direct objects, he must c1aim that a governs both of these positions in
Welsh. l1 He does this by proposing a derived structure where S immediately
dominates V, Infl, NPI (subject) and NP2 (object), a fairly radical claim about
Welsh phrase structure. The structure, given in 54), is derived by structure
pruning following V-raising. 12
(541
V NP1 NP2
Harlow's account encounters difficulties motivating the choice of
relativization strategy. In order to block the occurrence of a in indirect relatives,
he daims that the agreement affixes are in fact pronominaIs, and that
pronominaIs in Welsh are translated as bound variables at LF. The restriction is
then related to a constraint on variables at LF. If the agreement affix on the
head of, for example, a preposition is co-indexed with [el, then [el is properly
govemed, but then the pronominal a is a free variable at LF. If a but not the
(agreement or clitic) pronominal is co-indexeè with [el, then [el is not properly
govemed. If they are both co-indexed with the [el, the structure violates a one
to-one requirement between lexical NPs and argument positions.
ln this way, the analysis blocks the use of a with the indirect cases, but
fails te explain why the grammar bas this second strategy at all. Additional
modifications are required te rule out the following sentence, with Agr
governing [el.
59
• (55) * y dynion y darllenasant [el y llyfrthe men C read-3pl the bookthe men that read the book
Harlow maintains that an NP in subject or direct object position
potentially has two governors: Agr and a co-indexed element in C. However,
only one govemor is permitted. Essentially, he stipulates that the highest C must
bind an NP in S, effectively dictating the choice of govemor, namely a.13 A co
indexed null element in C satisfies this requirement in the indirect cases.
To sum up this aspect of his proposal, sentences like (a) below are
ungrarnmatical because [el is doubly govemed, whereas (b) is ungrarn:natical
because the head of the relative must bind an NP in C. Only (c) satisfies both
binding and government.
• (56) a. *y dynion [ai [ddarllenasanti [~]
•
b. *y dynion [y [darllenasanti [~] ...
c. y dynion [ai [ddarllenodd [~].
To account for the patteming together of subjects and VSO direct objects
with respect to relativization (the ùu:k of asymmetry issue), he proposes a
pruning transformation which follows verb-raising to I. This transformation
leaves both subjects and direct objects in non-periphrastic sentences governed by
C. This pruning also serves to distinguish direct objects of tensed verbs in
simple sentences from direct objects in periphrastic sentences (the direct object
issue); pruning can only occur if the verb bas raised out of VP. In a periphrastic
construction, the verb remains in VP, and the VP blocks government from C. In
60
• this way, Harlow accounts for the patterning together of complements of [
finite] verbs, complements of prepositions (proteeted by PP) and noun phrases
in genitive constructions (proteeted by NP).
2.4.2.1. NEGATED RELATIVE CLAUSES
e
Harlow's proposed constraint that the head of a relative must bind an NP
in the adjacent C holds in negated relative clauses as weil. This means that there
must be a nuIl eIement co-indexed with the head of the relative clause in negated
relatives, just as in indirect relativization. Since bis analysis of the direct pattern
of relativization requires that the pronominal element a fulfill both the co
indexation requirement and the govemment requirement for subjects and VSO
direct objects, and since govemment is defined in terms of c-command, he
suggests that the negative eIement na is generated under C, creating a branching
C. Thus, C in negated relatives dominates two nodes, one containing the
negative complementizer na and the other containing a null NP eIement co
indexed with the head of the relative. The co-indexed NP in C no longer fuIfills
the c-command condition, 50 govemment of an empty category in subject or
direct object position from an eIement in C is blocked, and local agreement is
needed.
•
(57) S'
V INFL NP' NP2
61
• 2.4.2.2. DISCUSSION OF HARLOW'S ANALYSIS
•
Harlow's analysis relies on the c1aim that a a pronominal in C and y(r) is
a complementizer. The c1aim that these are distinct elements receives some
support from Lie fact that they trigger distinct consonant mutations. Whereas a
triggers soft mutation of a following consonant, y does not trigger any
mutation.14 However, the mutation effect is not very slrong evidence for
claiming that a is pronominal. As noted by Sadler, the question partic1e a also
triggers soft mutation, shown in (58), but one would not want to c1aim that this
particle too is an NP.
(58) A welais ti ef?PT saw-2s you himDid you see him?
Furthermore, certain problems fol1ow from the c1aim that the head of the
relative must be co-indexed with (bind) an element in the adjacent C. There
does not seem to be a requirement that this coindexed element in C be lexica1ly
ft1led by a. In fact, in indirect relativization, it cannot be fil1ed.
(59) "y dynion a y dywedodd Dafydd Ydarl1enasant le) y lIyfrthe men NP C said-3sg David C read-3pl the bookthe men thal David said read the book
The structure of an indirect reiative must be as shown in (60).
(60) HEADi [ [e]i y [••.[y [ Agr.•.]))
But if we allow this e1ement te optionally be lexically fi11ed, we do not
have any explanation for the ungrammaticality of (61).
62
• (61) .y dynioni [ [e]i y [darllenasant [el y llyfrthe men NP C read the bookthe men wJw read the book
In order to account for the fact that a pronominal cannot co-occur with
agreement in indirect relativization, but may if non-relativized, even though
neither is assumed to involve movement, Harlow must resort to the c1aim that
the same de1etion ruIe applies in both cases, but it applies obligatorily only in
the latter. Rule-based analyses of this kind are now genera1ly considered
inadequate. We shall now examine two more recent analyses of these facts:
Sadler (1988) and Rouveret (1990).
2.4.3. SADLER (1988): A CONJOINED ECP
With respect to agreement in We1sh, Sadler (1988) interprets the pre
head agreement markers found in possessive NPs and on [-tense] verbs as clitics
indicating an agreement relationship holding between the heads of these phrases
and their pronominal complements, just as agreement inflection on tensed verbs
and on sorne prepositions is indicative of such a relationship. Their presence,
like that of inflection, allows the personal pronoun to be dropped.
Like Harlow (1981), Sadler proposes two distinct structures for the
direct and indirect patterns of relative clause formation. Her analysis alse
exploits the difference between an empty category with the status of a trace, and
pro, an ernpty category co-indexed with agreement and base-generated in
argument position.
Her analysis rests on the initial assumption that traces in We1sh are in
complementary distribution with the presence of agreement morphology. Thus,
for Sadler, only in direct relativization is the empty NP in the ~:elativized
63
•
•
argument position a non-pronominal [el, subject to the ECP. In indirect
relativization, the empty element is pro, licensed by agreement on the governing
head.
Sadler proposes the following structure for direct relative clauses.
(62) rOi a[...[e]i· ..]]S' S
As a non-pronominal empty NP, [el is subject to the ECP and must be
properly governed. She proposes a conjunctive formulation of the ECP, the
CECP, given in (63).
(63) CECP: NP[e]i must be lexicalIy governed and locally co-indexed.[Sadler 1988:149]
Consider the schematized S-structures of subject and VSO direct object
reIativization, given in (64) and (65), respectiveIy.
(64) [XiS·
(65) [xkS'
[Infl+VS [aagr]
[Infl+VS [aagr]
[~] [VP]]NP
NP [... t [~]]]
[aagr] VP NP
•
Sadler maintains that NP [~ and NP [~ are lexically governed by Infl
and the trace of V respectiveIy. The chain involving the fronted V and the trace
of V provides the lexical governor for the direct object ernpty eategory. Subject
and VSO direct object ernpty categories are aIso co-indexed with an antecedent
64
• governor-- the operator in C. This co-indexation is sufficiently local to satisfy
the CECP.
In the indirect pattern, pro is doubled either by person inflection or a
clitic on its governing head (x), as iIlustrated below. When the head does not
have agreement forrns (i.e. with a non-inflecting preposition), we find a
resumptive pronoun in base position as in (66b).
(66) a. y[... [x... [pro]i...]]+AgTj
•
•
b. y[... [x... [pronoun]i...]]-AgTj
Given that the structures proposed for both the direct and indirect
strategies satisfy the requirement of lexical government (P in PP, VN for objects
of [-finite] Vs in periphrastics and infinitivaIs), the indirect strategy must
involve a failure of antecedent government. Sadler concludes that the empty
NPs above are not co-indexed with a sufficiently local antecedent, defined in
terrns of an element's Agreement Domain (AD). ADs are specified as S' for
subjects and VSO direct objects, NP for the possessed NP in a possessive
construction, pp for prepositionai complements, and VP if the head M is not a
trace (i.e. in periphrastic VPs). Thus, VP is an agreement domain only if the
verb bas not raised to 1. This allows Sadler 10 account for the fact that VSO
direct objects pattern with subjects and not with periphrastic direct objects; VSO
direct objects and subjects share an AD.
In principle, Sadler's anaiysis allows subjects and VSO direct objects 10
exhibit the indirect pattern. To account for the fact that this option would result
in an unacceptable sentence (the gap strategy must occur where it can), Sadler
6S
• makes the plausible assumption that in a language in which both a gap (direct)
and a resumptive pronoun (indirect) strategy are available for relativization. we
would expect the latter 10 be more or less restricted to cases in which a gap is
unacceptable.
2.4.3.1. NEGATED RELATIVES
•
•
Reca11 that the direct strategy is unavailable for subject and VSO direct
object positions in negative relative clauses.
(67) Ydynion a ddarllenodd [el y llyfrthe men PT read-3sg the bookthe men who read the book
(68) Ydynion na ddarllenasant [el y llyfrthe men Neg read-3pl the bookthe men who didn 't read the book
As we have seen, within Sadler's set of assumptions, there is no failure
of lexical govemment in the negated relatives, so the unacceptability of a gap
strategy must be related 10 a failure in anteeedent govemment. She concludes
that the negative element interferes in sorne way with the C-indexation
mechanism, thus blocking anteeedent govemment of the empty category in
subject or direct object position by the operator in C, and forcing a resumptive
pronoun strategy. Accordingly, like Harlow, Sadler analyzes na as generated
under C.
66
• 2.4.3.2. DISCUSSION OF SADLER'S ANALYSIS
•
The lack of asymmetry between subjects and VSO direct objects is
handled by the fact that the agreement domain is defined as identical for subjects
and VSO direct objects. She derives the extension of the AD for direct objects
via verb raising.
Sadler' s proposai discusses but does not provide a principled reason for
the appearance of the y complementizer with an empty category when ? pp is
c1efted or questioned (the Non-Argument Issue). She is led to stipulate that PPs
do not have an AD. Given that these facts arise with all non-argument clefts and
questions, not merely with PPs, her analysis will have to specify that no adjunct
has such a domain. It would be preferable to capture these facts in a more
principled manner.
With respect to the Co-Occurrence Issue, Sadler (1988:138) mentions the
unacceptability of a pronominal doubling agreement in indirect relativization,
but does not propose an explanation. Accordingly, her analysis fails to account
for a very striking difference between agreement in indirect relatives and
agreement in non-relativized structures.
2.4.4. ROUVERET (1990): A BARRIERS ApPROACH
•
Rouveret (1990) analyzes both clitics and inflectional agreement as
clitics: XO-level elements, base-generated in argument positions. Rouveret's
proposai captures the differences between direct and indirect relativization by
analyzing the pre-sentential particle a as a clitic which (under his assumptions)
cannot raise out of a maximal projection in Welsh.
This enables him to maintain that the direct and indirect relativization
structures are rather similar. In bath types, a c1itic element is affixed onto the
67
• minimal head governing the relativization site. He bases this on the observation
that the same Iocality conditions appear to hold bctween the clitic and the
position it duplicates.
Neither the effect of negative complementizers nor the impossibility of
an in situ pronominal doubling agreement in the indirect relativization pattern
are directly addressed in his paper, but his proposaI will be evaluated in the light
of these and other facts.
Like Sadler, Rouveret takes the obligatory occurrence of a clitic in the
indirect cases to suggest that wh-movement and NP-movcment are not available
options in those structures. Thus, the position governed by a lexical head N,
VN, or Pis not an appropriate site for NP-trace or wh-trace in Welsh.
His analysis rests on the claims listed in (69).
• (69) a. Welsh phrase structure includes both a VP and a VNP (verb-nounphrase).
•
b. Welsh X-bar differs erucially from other familiar languages in notprojecting the level XP. Accordingly, there are no Specifierpositions in Welsh. Elements that would otherwise be analyzed asoccurring in a Specifier are treated as adjunction structures. Thus,subjects are generated adjoined to VP, and remain there at Sstructure.
c. Agr is not instantiated in Welsh; 1 is exclusively spccified for thefeature [tense).
68
• d. Adjunction 10 argument categories is not permitted. VNP isincluded as an argument category. Thus, only VP and IF can beadjoined to.
•
e. Clitics are heads, and traces of clitics are subject to the ECP.
f. A version of minimality as proposed in Chomsky (1986) isasssumed. Thus, unlike Rizzi (1990), the definition of minimalityis not relativized
If Welsh clitics are indeed to be analyzed as heads, as Kayne (1991)
analyzes French clitics, then an explanation is needed for the fuct that there is
no clitic-elimbing in Welsh. Rouveret's explanation for this forms part of a
wider proposai that movement is generally restricted in Welsh. His proposai is
outlined below.
2.4.4.1. CImes IN WElSH
•
Clitic-elimbing rtSults in a clitic attached 10 a lexical item of wliich it is
not an argument. This can be illustrated with en-constructions in French. The
genitive clitic en is J'l'alized not on the nominal head that governs the empty
position, but on the verbal head that immediately governs the NP domain.
(70) J'en ai vu le frere, de Marie.1 of-her have seen the brother, of Marie1have seen Marie's brocher.
According 10 Rouveret, c1itics in Welsh always occur on the minimally
goveming head. The sentences given below, where the complement clitic
surfaces on the pre-sentential emphatic partic1e Je, rather than on the minimal
governing head, are ungrammatical.
69
• (71) *Fe'i brynais i [dy [e]].EMPH-3sg bought-ls 1 house1bought his house.
(72) Fe brynais i [ei dy [e]].EMPH bought-lsg 1 3sg house1bought his house.
(73) *Fe'i wnaeth y plant [ddarllen [e)).EMPH-3sg did-3sg the children readThe children read il.
(74) Fe wnaeth y plant [ei ddarllen [e)).EMPH did-3sg the children 3sg readThe children read il.
In other cases, however, these pre-sentential particles can support a
clitic; specifically, if the clitic is a VSO direct object clitic.
(75) Fe'i ddarlleno<!d y plant [el.EMPH-3sg read-3sg the childrenThe children read il.
This leads Rouveret 10 claim that in these cases a VSO direct object clitic
can surface on the pre-sentential particle because that particle is the minimal
goveming head for the direct object, due 10 verb-raising. We will retum 10 this
point later.
2.4.4.2. Two RELA'llVIZA'lION PATl'ERNS
Rouveret captures the distinctions between direct and indirect
relativization structures as follows: In the former, the goveming head is a tensed
70
•
•
V, not a VN or a P, and there is only one maximal projection separating the
empty ca~gory in relativized position from its antecedent.
He argues that the unacceptability of pre-sentential a in the indirect cases
is related te the constraints on movement in Welsh. He proposes that a be
analyzed as a relative pronominal clitic, base-generated in argument position,
which moves up te the minimal head goveming the relativization site: in the
case of subjects and VSO direct objects, this is [V+tense]. Since the tensed verb
is always sentence-initial, except in cases where a pre-sentential particIe is
found, this relative clitic appears to be in the same position as yr.
In defense of the cIaim that a is substantially different in kind from yr (a
position taken earlier by Harlow (1981», he notes that a has certain clitic-like
properties, incIuding the fact that it cannot be separated from the verbal head te
which it is affixed except by an intervening pronominal clitic. lS The relative
clitic, being a head, cannot raise out of an opaque domain, and is trapped if
generated inside of a maximal projection (pP, NP, VNP). Rouveret's analysis
ofXPs as opaque domains in Welsh is descnbed below.
2.4.4.3. No SPECIFIERS, ND XP MOVEMENT
Based on the fact that questions and cIefts pattern with relative clauses,
Rouveret must restrict wh-movement in WeIsh, as weIl as clitic-movement. He
does this by claiming that Welsh phrase structure does not include specifier
positions, which makes al! maximal projections in Welsh barriers te
govemment.
Within a Barriers-type fiamework (Chomsky (1986a», the specifier and
the head of a domain can be govemed from the outside, but its complements
71
•
•
•
cannot. Thus, in the structure gi\'cn bclow. if a L-marks X·, thcn y is go\'crncd
by .:x, but Pis not.
(76) ...a [y [ ...X ...p...]]X" X'
The presence of a singlc barrier bctwecn a and P prc\'cnts a from
goveming p. The presence of two or more barricrs bctwecn a and P pre\'cnts
syntactic movement from Pto a. Thc dcfinitions of thc ECP and Subjaccncy are
given below.
(77) PROPER GOVERNM:!ôNT:
a propcrly govems Piff a 6-govems or antcccden' govcms p.
(78) SUBJACENCY:
If (ai, ai+ r) is a link in a chain, then ai+ 1 is subjacent 10 ai.ai+ 1 is subjaccnt to ai iff thcre is at most onc banicr for ai +1that excludes ai.
The combination of restrictions on adjunction and the proposed lack of
spccifiers in Welsh blocks wh-movement out of maximal projections thal arc
barriers for govemment. He therefore assumes thal in questions and c1efts, no
movement occurs except in the case of local subjects and VSO direct objects,
where movement is restricted to raising of the relative c1itic a 10 the minimal
goveming head (the verb which has raised to 1).
Recall that a c1itic generated within a possessive NP cannot raise to a
pre-sentential particle (example (71». However, as shown in (79), VSO direct
object clitics can surface on these particles.
72
• (79) Fe' i ddarllenodd y plant.EMPH-3sg read-3sg the childrenThe children read il.
Rouveret maintains that the clitic fust rai= te V, and then V-to-I
movemolt neutralizes the barrierhood of VP, allowing an object clitic te raise
further te a pre-sentential particle.
2.4.4.4. NEGATED RELATIVES
•
Consider now how Rouveret's analysis might handle negative relatives in
Welsh. His daim is that the relativf.; paniclea can occur on the tensed V if the
relativized position is, in sorne sense, clCise enough. In non-periphrastic
sentences, both the subject and direct C'lIject positions meet this locality
condition. However, if the relative clause is negated, then the relativized
argument is too far away. .The indirect strategy found with negated relative clauses suggests that
sentential negation introduces a barrier. This barrier could be related te the
presence of an additional maximal projection, Negation Phrase (NegP). Note,
however, that adjUllClion te NegP would have to be blocked, and NegP would
have te be generated without a specifier, in oroer te capture the fuct that
interrogative and cleft constructions pattern with relative clauses with respect te
negation. In principle, Rouveret disallows adjunction only te argument-type
maximal projections. He would therefore have te claim that NegP is an
argument-type maximal projection, an unintuitive result.
2.4.4.5. DISCOSSION OFROUVERET'S ANALYSIS
Other problems are associated with Rouveret's treatment of WeIsh.
Rouveret analyzes agreement markers as clitics, base-generated in argument
73
position and then raised 10 their minimal goveming head. Accordingly. his
analysis leads one to expect the lack of clitic doubling in relativized structures,
but fails 10 exp1ain why doul>ling is in fact permitted in non-relativization
structures and in cases of relativization out of complex NPs ('true islands',
discussed earlier).16
Rouveret points out certain inadequacies in his analysis. First, it cannot
account for the dependence of object clitic climbing in VSO on the presence of a
pre-sentential partic\e. Also, it does not capture the lexical class of elements !bat
cannot support c\itics in Welsh (adjectives, certain prepositions, etc.).
Finally, it is worth emphasizing that his analysis requires a phrase
structure for Welsh which is radically different from other languages, a proposal
that 1will argue is not necessary.
•
• 2.4.5. SUMMARY
e
The analyses discussed above, which appeal 10 constraints on empty
categories to derive the different agreement patterns in Welsh relativization, are
not entirely satisfactory.
First, because a strong causal relationship is posited between the choice
of complementizer and the agreement patterns, there is no natural explanation
for why pied-piping in clefts and wh-questions requires the yr complementizer,
associated with the indirect strategy, but neither an agreement clitic nor a
pronominal marks the extraction site.
Second, while these analyses account for the aceeptability of an empty
category in the relativized position in direct relatives, they do not provide a
unified explanation for the fact that, whereas a pronominal can double
agreement in a non-relativized position, it cannot in indirect relativization. This
74
•
•
is a robust fact that should fall out naturally from an adequate analysis of
relativization in Welsh.
In addition, by treating the indirect strategy as essentially a resumptive
pronoun strategy, there is no explanation for certain relativization structures
(i.e. relativization out of complex noun phrases) which, unlike bath the direct
and indirect patterns, do aIlow a pronominal ta co-occur with agreement or a
clitic marking the relativization site.
Finally, relativized subjects and VSO direct objects are treated
identically in these analyses; neither a pronominal nor an agreement marker can
mark the relativization site. By removing the subject-object asymmetry in a
radical manner, i.e. by strucrure-pruning (Harlow 1981) or by voiding
barrierhood, there is no immediate explanation for the fact that a subject-object
asymmetry does appear in negated relative clauses. Whereas negated subject
relatives have only one option (obligatory agreement on the tensed verb, and an
obligatory [e] in argument position, the pattern associated with the indirect
strategy), it is not clear that the indirect strategy is found with negated VSO
direct objects. 11Iese exhibit a pattern associated with unrelativized structures,
an optional pronominal in the extraction site, as long as an agreement clitic
appears on the negative marker.
1 will argue for a revised analysis of these facts, one which suggests a
different account of relativization, agreement, and the role played by sentential
negation.
7S
• 2.5. A NEW PROPOSAI..
2.5.1. INTRODUCIlON17
•
•
In this section, l propose an analysis for the paradigm involving
agreement and negation in Welsh relative clauses. Two of the syntactic roles
played by negation that will be relevant for this thesis will be introduced: its
role as a potential barrier for Xo raising, and its role in Case-licensing.
l will present arguments for a revision of the treatment of relativization
in Welsh, eliminating the traditional distinction between direct and indirect
relativization. l will analyze sentential negation in Literary Welsh as projecting
a Negation Phrase, generated above TP. The phenomenon of agreement
surfacing on the negative marker in Welsh will be analyzed, and the restriction
on agreement-marking on the negative marker to direct objects in simple tensed
clauses will be accounted for.
The analysis will exploit recent proposals concerning th.: analysis of
agreement and X-Bar theory. l will claim that both the direct and indirect
patterns reflect wh-movement. Agreement will be treated as the reflex of an S
structure Case-checking operation, and the different pre-sentential particles and
agreement patterns associated with the distinct relativization strategies will be
analyzed as resulting from the configurational relationship between the A'-chain
formed by operator movement to the specifier of CP and a Case-licensing head.
Like the analyses described above, l will argue that a resumptive strategy
is found in Welsh only when wh-movement is not available, but l will not
analyze the so-ca1led indirect strategy as being forced by the ECP. A resumptive
strategy will be proposed only for those cases of relativization where an in situ
pronominal may be found, as is the case with relativization out of complex NP
76
• islands, out of PPs headed by non-inflecting prepositions, and of VSO direct
objects in negated relative clauses.
The discussion is organized as follows. An introduction 10 the structural
assumptions and the treatment of a.,areement and Case assumed is presented
below. In section 2.6 1 propose a unified analysis of Welsh relative clauses
which accounts for the pre-sentential particle and the agreement patterns in the
direct and indirect strategies. In section 2.7 the analysis is extended 10 negated
relative clauses and we address the phenomenon of agreement surfacing on the
sentential negation marker.
2.5.2. TBEoRETICAL FRAMEwORK
This analysis is based on the following initial assumptions about phrase
structure. Structures obey a binary-branching requirement.. AU categories obey
X-bar theory and may project a specifier. 1 also assume a two-tiered VP (Larson
(1987», the verb being generated in the head of the lower VP, and the head of
the higher VP being empty. The head of the higher VP will be referred ta as
Della, and 1 will occasionally refer 10 this phrase as a Delta-phrase in order 10
distinguish it from the lower VP. Subjects will be generated in the specifier of
the higher VP (Kitagawa (1986); Koopman & Sportiche (1988». 1 will follow
Pollock (1989) in positing a TP, but 1 will not inc1ude AgrP in this analysis.18
Somewhat more radically, 1 will assume that a TP is generated only in
[+tense] sentences in WeIsh. Given the assumption that subjects are generated
intemal 10 VP, in the specifier of the higher VP in a Larsonian she11, the surface
•
•
2.5.2.1. STRUcnJRAL ASSUMP110NS
77
• SVO order found in infinitivals marks the order of these constituents in their
base positions within VP.
A language may include the category Negation Phrase (NegP) in its
phrase structure. 1 will maintain that NegP in Welsh can only he generated in a
sentence that instantiates TP.19
2.5.2.1.1. THE POSITION OF NEOP
•
A negative sentence in fonnal Welsh takes the simple fonn of
introducing a negative particle initially before a positive sentence. There are five
such negative pre-sentential particles, depending on whether the sentence to be
negated is a statement, a tag-question, an imperative, or a relative clause. In this
section we will be concerned only with the first and the last kinds of sentences,
which require the negative e1ements ni(d) and nard), respectively.20 They are
illustrated below.
(80) Mae John yn arcs.is-3s John in stayJohn is sraying.
(81) Nid yw John yn arcs.Neg is-3s John in stayJohn isn 'r sraying.
[Jones & Thomas 1977:317-318]
(82) y dynion a ddarllenodd [el y llyfrthe men Fr read-3sg the bookthe men w.1o read the book
78
•
•
1
(83) Ydynion na ddarllenasant [el y llyfrthe men Neg read-3pl the bookthe men who didn't read the book
[Harlow 1981:237]
Consider the simple case of a negated statement. Welsh is a surface VSO
language. The negative element always occurs in S-initial position, immediate1y
preceding the tensed verb. Nothing can intervene hetween the negative marker
and the verb.
Proposals as 10 the base position of NegP cross-linguistically include
generating it immediate1y below TP, immediately above TP, AgrP, and VP.
Analyses which do not allow movement of the negative head itself ascertain th~
base position of NegP by its S-sttucture position relative 10 other constituents.
However, once we allow for the possibility of treating the negative marker as a
head which is itself capable of movement, the ground becomes very unstable
indeed.
Given that the negative marker is the leftmost lexical item in a simple
sentence, if the negative marker itself has not undergone movement then the
most straightforward assumption would be that NegP is the highest functionaI
category in S.21 However, if we analyze the negative marker as a head, it could
be argued that it arrives at the S-initial position in Welsh from any of a number
of lower potential base-positions. This movement could occur independently
(i.e. forœd by its clitic nature, as argued by Pollock (1989) and Belletti (1990»,
or it could he driven by the requirements of the Head Movement Constraint,
whereby the verb would he forœd 10 move through Neg, necessarily taking the
negative marker along with it as it moves up the structure (Ouhalla (1990».
79
• However, l will adopt the more sttaightfowarC: initial assumption that NegP in
LW is generated above TP.
Given a treatment of sentential negation as a hcad, we can appeal to its
status as a potential barrier to support this base position for NegP. If negation is
generated below TP, we might expect it 10 block V-ta-T raising, forcing a verb
10 surface without [tense] marking in a negated clause as in do-support sentences
in English. This is not the case. Negation in Welsh will be shown 10 interfere
only with V-raising to C.
2.5.2.2. AGREEMENT AND S-STRUcnJRE CASE-CBECKING
•In non-relativized structures, the agreement paradigm is sttaightforward.
As described earlier, agreement cannot surface if the argument in question is a
non-pronominal NP but is obligarory if the argument is pronominal. A
pronominal that triggers agreement can then optionally drop.
Throughout, l take the proclitics that surface on nouns and untensed
verbs to be derived under the same conditions as inflectional agreement.
Whether these agreement features are prefixed or sufflxed 10 the head is
determined by the lexical specifications of the head. The basic agreement
paradigm is repeated below for convenience.
(84) SUBJECT AGREEMENT
a. Gwelodd (*gwelsant) y dynion y ci.saw (saw-3pl) the men the dogThe men saw the dog.
80
• b. Gwelsant (*gwelodd) (hwy) y ci.saw-3pl (saw) (they) the dogThey saw the dog.
(85) OBJECT AGREEMENT
a. Mae Wyn yn son arndano (ef).is-3sg Wyn PROG speak about-3sgm (him)~n is spea/dng about him.
b. Mae Wyn yn prynu ci dy (ef).is-3sg Wyn PROG buy 3sgm house (him)~n is buying his Muse.
•c. Mae Wyn yn ci ddarllen (el).
is-3sg Wyn PROG 3sgm read (it)~n is reading it.
[Sadler 1988:123]
Object agreement never surfaces on a tensed verb. Thus, in VSO
structures, the direct object pronominal is obligatory. This is illustrated in (86).
(86) Gwelsant (hwy) *(ef).saw-3pl they itThey sawil.
The position taken here is that agreement in Welsh reflects the operation
of Case-checking. In much =nt work within GB theory, inc1uding Chomsky
(1992), Sportiche (1990), Mahajan (1990), Johnson (1990), and Noonan (1992),
the proposai that structural Case must be checked in a SpecifierlHead
configuration, either at S-Strueture or at LF, bas been adopted. This is
formulated here as the Licensing Condition on Chaïns (LCC), given in (87).
81
• (81) LCC: A chain must be Case-checked at S-structure or at LF.
1 will adopt the view, advocated by Sportiche (1990) and Mahajan
(1990), that agreement reflects Case-checking in a Spec/Head configuration
established at S-structure.22 The definition of a licit Spec/Head configuration
will be formulated in terms of chains. Given a maximal projection XP, a licit
Spec/Head Case configuration holds between an element in the head of XP and
an element in the specifier of XP if the following conditions hold.
•
(88) Llcrr SPEc/HEAD CONFIGURATION:
(i) The element in the head of XP must be a morphologicallycomplete member of the chain of a head specified [+Case).and(ii) The element in either the head or the specifier of XP must bethe head of a chain {i.e. not a trace).
This can be illustrated by the structures given in (89), where H is a Case
licensing head. The structure in (ii), where both the element in the head of XP
and the element in the specifier of XP are traces, is not a licit Spec/Head Case
configuration.
(89)
(i) (ii) XP
~t
•Under these assumptions, the obligatoriness of agreement with
pronominal NPs and the unacceptability of agreement with non-pronominal NPs
82
•
•
has a possible explanation, one that appeals 10 the distinction between S
structure and LF Case-ehecking. Non-pronominal NPs are not Case-ehecked
until LF; accordingly, they do not trigger agreement. Pronominal NPs, on the
other hand, have 10 he Case-ehecked in a specifier position at S-structure.23
Recal1, however, the surface word order in Welsh, where a head
precedes its complement even when the complement is a [+pronominal] NP.
This entai1s that pronominal NPs are Case-ehecked at S-structure but do Dot
mave 10 the specifier position until LF. We will maintain that at S-structure the
Lee is satisfied by pronominals via the formation of an A-ehain by indexation
between the in situ pronominal and a null pleonastic in a licit SpeclHead Case
configuration.
The chain that is formed can be compared 10 the chain between there and
the argument NP in existential sentences like (90), which allows agreement 10
be triggered on t'Je verb at S-structure, although the NP three men does Dot raise
to replace the expletive in subject position until LF.
(90) There were three men in the room.*There was three men in the room.
The pronominal NP can be dropped, under identification by agreement
morphology on the governing head (Rizzi 1986). A pronominal which has Dot
triggered agreement cannot he dropped. The S-structure configuration of a
pronominal prepositional object and a pronomina1 subject of a [+finite] verb are
illustrated in (91).24
83
• (91 ) pp
~~! P +agr-i NPi! +pronominal!,1 A1 :, '! !
::xplctivc-argumcnt cbain
NPs! + pronominal!A
...* ..._ •.__ .• __ t
c.~lctive-argurncnt chain
2.5.2.2.1. OBJEer-OBJEer AsYMMETRIES
•One of the more problematic facts for previous analyses of Welsh to
account for is the inability of pronominal VSO direct objects to trigger
agreement on a tensed verb. This distinguishes VSO direct "bjects from
periphrastic direct objects, which trigger agreement on the lower [-tense] verb
(VN). Because it does not trigger agreement, a pronominal VSO direct object,
unlike a pronominal periphrastic direct object, does not have the OptiOll of being
dropped.
(92) Welais (i) ·(et).Saw-lsg (1) himlsawhim.
(93) Mae Wyn wedi ei weld (et).be-3sg Wyn PERF 3sgm seel\-)II Ms seen him.
Under the analysis proposed here, this distinction is expected. The verb
in a tensed sentence is not morphologically complete until it bas incorporated
with the tense morphology generated under T. The verb in T is in a SpeclHead
84
• configu;ation with SpeclTP, a position available for the null pleonastic co
indexed with the subject, not with the object.~ Accordingly, a direct object
pronominal will never be in a licit SpeclHead configuration with its Case
assigner if that Case-licenser is a vero in T. The situation is iIIustrated in (94).
t-v NP-k
1 :..: t...__.._.-._.__." :
V+ Agr-i NP·; [+ pronominall
[eli
Î1
i
(7"P
V'
NP-k ...
t-v
e-i
(94)
On the other band, the lower verb in a periphrastic construction such as
(93) does not have to raise to T; it is morphologicaIly complete without [tense]
features. Thus, the null pleonastic co-indexed with the object in the specifier of
the lower VP is in a licit SpecfHead Case configuration, and agreement surfaces
on the untensed verb. This is shown in (95).
(95)
•
•
85
•
•
Note that, while this analysis rules out Case-licensing the pronominal
direct object via SpeclHead coindexation at S-structure, the manner in which
pronominal VSO direct objects satisfy the Case-licensing requirement has not
been specified. There are two possibilities. First, it could be aIgued that the
pronominal can be Case-licensed at LF, where the requirement of morphological
completeness is relaxed.26 In this way, the lack of surface agreement with these
pronominals would follow from the fact that they are are not Case-ehecked at S
structure.
Altematively, if we maintain that a SpecfHead configuration which is not
licit at S-structure is not licit at LF either, the VSO direct objects may be Case
!icensed via govemment by the vero. 1 will maintain that the latter is the correct
analysis. Sorne support for postulating a Case-licensing mechanism via
govemment cornes from non-inflecting prepositions. Prepositions can he divided
into two classes: those that can be inflected with agreement marking, and those
that cannot be 50 inflected. The latter cannot support either inflectional
agreement or the agreeing pre-head c!itic found on VNs and NPs in possessive
constructions. Instead, an in situ full pronominal must occur.
There are good arguments for making the claim that these non-inflecting
prepositions are best analyzed as not projecting a specifier.27 As such, they do
not provide a position for Case-ehecking in a SpecfHead configuration either at
S-strueture or at LF; in other words, neither [+pronominal] nor [-pronominal]
NPs find a !icit SpecfHead configuration in these phrases. The grammar of
Welsh must therefore allow Case licensing via govemment by the head of pp at
S-structure. Given that Welsh requires a mechanism whereby Case is assigned
other than via SpecfHead coindexation in any case, we will appeal to this
86
• mechanism to account for the Case-licensing of VSO direct objects rathcr than
introducing a relaxation of the definition of licit Spec/Hcad configuration at
LF.28 The notion of Case-licensing under govemment is refincd in the following
section.
2.5.2.2.2. CASE-ASSIGNMENT TO VSO DIRECT OBJECTS
•
•
l will suggest that an argumen: can be Case-licensed by the verb undcr
govemment rather than by Spcc/Hcad coindexation if the following conditions
hold. First, the capacity is sensitive to a position in the structure. Il is movement
through this position that activates the Case-licensing mechanism. In Welsh, the
position at which the V may assign Case under govemment is Delta, the hcad of
the higher VP in a Larsonian shell.29 The member of the verb-ehain in Delta
can assign Case to an XP in the specifier of the projection that it immediately
dominates. Second, if the specifier of the projection that Delta' immediately
dominates is a potential licit Spec/Head Case configuration, the ability to assign
Case to that position under govemment is blocked.30 Third, Case-assignment
under govemment by the verb-ehain takes place at LF, following raising of an
NP to the appropriate specifier position; agreement, the reflex of S-structure
Case-licensing in a Spec/Head configuration, is not triggered.
The LF representation of a VSO sentence in Welsh with a non
pronominal direct object is given in (96).
87
• (96) TP
t-v
4NPobj
CASE t-v t-obj
•The member of the V-chain in Delta Case-licenses the direct object. In
the next section, this treatment of Case and agreement will be shown 10
eliminate the traditional notion of two distinct re1ativization strategies in Welsh.
2.6. AGREEMENT JN RELA11VE CLAUSES
2.6.1. BACKGROUND
•
Previous analyses have treated the relativized position in an indirect
relative as a resumptive pronoun.31 In the analysis which follows, 1 argue that
both strategies involve syntactic movement.
1 will maintaÎn that a resumptive strategy is available in Welsh, but it is
not refiected in the so-eal1ed indirect strategy. Rather, it is found only when
movement is impoSSlble, i.e. in cases of relativization out of a complex or
coordinate NP island.32 In these cases, an example of which is given in (97), the
c1aim that movement is blocked is consistent with the acceptability of a full
88
•
•
•
pronominal in the relativized position co-occurring with agreement marking.
The resumptive pronominal in (97) is in a conjoined NP.
(97) Dyma'r eneth garedig y diolchais i [iddi hi a'i thad).here-is-the girl kind that thanked-lsg 1 to-3sgf her and her fatherHere is the lànd girl tJuu 1 thanked (her) and herjarher.
Compare this with an instance of the indirect strategy, given in (98),
where a pronominal argument is complete1y ungrammatical.
(98) Dyma'r eneth garedig y diolchais i iddi (*hi).here-is-the girl kind that thanked-lsg 1 to-3sgf (ber)Here is the lànd girl that 1 thanked.
A natural inclination is to argue that these contructions do not involve
wh-movement, and that the optional surfacing of the pronominai indicates that
the pronominal NP remains in its base position and can be dropped under
identification by agreement on the governing head, just as in non-relativized
structures. This raises problems for analyses which maintain that the indirect
strategy, charaeterized by the inability of an in situ pronominal to surface, does
not involve movement.
1 will propose an alternative explanation for the agreement patterns
associated with the two relativization strategies. Both will be analyzed as
involving wh-movement to spec/CP. The agreement marking the relativization
site in the indirect strategy will be argued to reflect C3se-checking of the A'
chain created by wh-movement; not the presence of a resumptive pronoun.
Since 1 am denying the claim that two distinct strategies are involved, 1
will re1"er to the direct and indirect patterns of relativization. The pre-sentential
partïcles a and yr are analyzed as complementïzers. The patterns of agreement
89
•
•
associated with the two strategies are characterized for convenience below,
where H represents a head.
(99) Direct Pattern:
NP...[CP ÜJli a [TI' ... [HP H(*agr)..til ..l
(100) Indirect Pattern:
NP... [CP Opi yr [TP...[HP H*(agr) ..ti l···l
Since 1 am proposing a movement analysis for both the direct and
indirect patterns, the challenge is not to explain the lack of an in-situ pronominal
in these structures (a constraint which is common 10 both patterns and which is
expected if there has been wh-movement) but 10 motivate the different
agreement patterns exhibited in the direct and indirect cases.
Consider first the fact that subjects and direct objects of tensed verbs
pattern 10gether with respect 10 relativization. There is one feature which
subjects and VSO direct objects in Welsh share that di~tinguishes them from an
other arguments: the heads that are responsible for Case-licensing these NPs, V
and T, are combined at S-structure. 1 will claim that the differences between the
direct and indirect relativization patterns follow from the different positions in
which Case-checking takes place.
1 will assume that the [V+1] complex raises 10 C in relative clauses.33
Both the indirect and direct strategies will be analysed as wh-movement 10
SpeclCP, and the distinct agreement patterns and complementizer selection will
be argued 10 result from differences in head movement. It will then follow that
only subjects and direct objects of tensed verbs exluoit the agreement pattern
90
•
•
and complementizer associated with the direct strategy because it i~ only their
Case-checking heads which raise to C. Other Case-licensing heads (i.e.
prepositions, [-finite) verbs, and noun heads of possessive NPs) remain within
their projection.
In this way, the LCC hCllds for A- a.'1d A'·chains in Welsh. In
accordance with the LCC, the A'-ehain created by this movement must he Case
checked at S-sttucture. In cases which involve wh-movement, the A'-ehain may
create more than one !icit SpeclHead configuration. 1 will maintain that a
constraint operates such that agreement is always realized at the lowest licit
SpeclHead configuration.34 This is formulated as the Condition on Agreement
ReaIization in (101):
(101) CONDrnONON AGREEMENTREA1JZAnON (CAR):Agreement is triggered once, at the lowest licit SpeclHeadconfiguration.
2.6.2" DERlVING THE DISllNcr COMPLEMEN'I1ZERS
The distinct complementizers, y(r) in the indirect pattern and a in the
direct pattern, will he derived as follows. The head of CP is taken to he y(r).
Since it is the default C, this claim is consistent with the fact that it is the form
found in regular embedded clauses, illustrated in (102).
(102) Rwfyn gobeithio [y daeth John ddoe).be-1sg in hope [C came John yesterday)1hope thal John came yesterday.
If C is in an agreement configuration at S-structure (that is, if the A'
chain is case-checked in ~CP) then C surfaces as a.35 The particle a is thus
91
CP
/
analyzed as the realization of (C+agr]. The fonTi agreement takes is highly
impoverished, and does not vary according to number, person or gender.
However, it is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the LCC.36 The
configuration triggerÎilg an agreeing C is illustrated in (103).
(103)
Op-k C
1 7' ~C+agr-k ~
! V+T...._-_!
•
•This analysis predicts that if the complementizer is a, there will be no
agreement with the relativized argument elsewhere in S. Since Case is checlœd
only once on a given chain, agreement on C precludes agreement with the same
argument elsewhere. In this way, the complementarity between the pre
sentential particle a and agreement with the relativized NP elsewhere is
explained without resorting to the claim that a is a pronominal (Harlow 1981) or
a clitic (Rouveret 1990).
While the complementizer a will never co-occur with agreement realized
on a head lower in the sentence, this analysis does not make the reciprocal
prediction. Thus, a lack of agreement marking the extraction site does not force
the a complementizer. If agreement, the realization of Case-licensing, is not
triggered, then we should find neither agreement marking the relativization site
nor an agreeing complementizer. This prediction is discussed in section 2.6.5.
92
• 2.6.3. DERIVING THE INDIRECT PATfER1"
•
•
As an illustration of relativization resulting in the indirect strategy.
consider relativization out of a prepositional phrase. Under the assumptions
specified above, the object of the preposition undergoes wh-movemerlt to
spec/CP. Movement must proceed through the argument's A-position, which in
the case of pp complements is the specifier of PP. The A'-chain headed by the
operator in specJCP includes a trace in spec/PP. Since the head of PP is
morphologicaIly complete and does not raise, its D-structure position determines
the lowest potential SpecJHead configuration for agreement. Thus, in
accordance with CAR, agreement is realized on P. Since agreement is realized
only once for a chain, we find the non-agreeing C. This is illustrated in (104).
(104) Ydyn y canodd efamdano (*ef)the man comp spoke-3sg he about-3sm (*him)the man rhar he spoke about
The structure of (104) is given in (105).
93
amdano
t·k<----/0-! P+Agr·k t·k1,! l ,_____._..L--_...~..,.;
11,
et
Np·jt Ai'__J:
11,111111111,11
canodd
~ V+[T+Agr·iJ111111,,,,
NP
y dyn y
(105)•
•Note that, even though the [V+1] complex has raised to C, agreement
with the subject pronominal is triggered in specfTP. This is predicted by the
CAR: the configuration at TP is the lowest licit SpeclHead configuration for the
pronominal subject at S-structure. The specifier contains the pleonastic head of
the chain, and the head of T dominates a morphologically complete member of
the chain of the raised V.
A question should be raised at this point. This account incorporates V
movement to C that is not forced by morphological requirements. What drives
this movement? 1 will propose that the driving force is the wh-operator in
speclCP. In a structure where the speclCP does not contain an operator, i.e. in
non-relativized embedded clauses, V-to-C movement does not take pIace. This
94
•
•
daim will be addressed further in section 2.6.6, when long-distance
relativization is ciiscllssed.
This analysis accounts straightforwardly for the fact that VSO direct
objects exhibit the direct strategy but direct objects in periphrastic constructions
exhibit the indirect strategy. Recall that in periphrastic constructions,
relativization of the direct object results in agreement on the untensed verb, and
the complementizer is y(r). This is illustrated in (106).
(106) Ydyn Y mae Sion wedi ei weld (*ef)the man comp is-3s John PERF 3sgm see (him)the man thaJ John has seen
In these cases the Case-licensing head (the VN) does not raise out of its
projection; hence its D-structure position determines the 10west potential
SpeclHead configuration for Case-checking. Since the chain of wh-movement
includes a trace Ïil spec of the 10wer VP, the configuration is licit and agreement
surfaces on the verb, in the form of the clitic ei. The S-structure of an instance
of relativization of a periphrastic direct object is given in (107).37
95
• (107)
•y dyn y mae Son wedi i ë\gr-k
: ",__.•.•.' l
11111
ei weld
t·k
The realization of agreement, the form of the complementîzer, and the
unacceptability of an in situ pronominal that characterize the indirect pattern of
relativization are thus accounted for. Wh-movement to spec/CP does occur, and
agreement is reali:ml at the lowest licit SpeclHead configuratior:: either on the
preposition, if a prepositional object is relativi:ml, or on the [-tense] verb, if a
periphrastic direct object is rclativi:ml. The complementizer is therefore the
non-agreeing form of C, whicb surfaces as yr. An in situ pronominal cannot co
occur with agreement in relativization contexts because it bas undergone wh
movement to spec/CP.
However, wben the direct object of a tensed verb (a VSO direct object)
is relativi:ml, agreement does not surface on the verb. Instead, we find the
96
• direct pa~ern; the complemenùzer is a. and neither a pronominal nor agreement
marks the extracùon site.
2.6.4. DERIVING THE DIREcr PATI'ERN
•
Consider fust subject relativizaùon. In a non-relaùvized sentence. T
remains in its D-structure position, and if the subject NP is pronomillal. the
coindexed null pleonastic in speclTP triggers agreement on T. This agreement is
realized as personlnumber agreement. However, in a relaùvized structure, the
verb moves through T, where it picks up tcnse morphology, and thcn raises to
C. The subject operator is in spec/CP. Case cannot be checked at TP, a lower
potential SpeclHead configuration, because neither the head nor the specifier of
TP contains the head of a chain, as required by part (ii) of the definiùon of a
licit SpeclHead configuration given in (88). Since the Case-checking head is in
C and the subject operator is in spec/CP, the lowest potential Spec/Head
configuration for the A' chain created by wh-movement is between C and
spec/CP. Accordingly, we find agreement on C (the head of the projecùon that
[V+T] has adjoined to) instead of the rich person/number agreement associated
with specITP. The agreeing form of the complementizer is a.
The S-structure representation of subject relaùvization is shown in (109).
(108) Ydyn a ddarllenodd [el y llyfrthe man C+agr read the bookthe man tJwl read the book
97
• (109)
t-V NP
L:::::..
Now, consider the case when a VSO direct object is relativized. When
the relativized argument is the direct object of a finite clause, the direct object
operator is in spec/CP. The Case-licensing head for the direct object is V. As
with all cases of affirmative relative clauses, the verb raises to T, and then
[V+T] raises ta C. Since the Case-licensing head for the direct object is in C,
the lowest potential Spec/Head configuration is again between the complex head
dominated by C and its spec position. Agreement is realiwl on C, the head of
the complex head, which then surfaces as Q. The S-structure representation of
VSO direct object relativization is shown in (111).
•y dyn a ddarllenodd y lIyfr
(110) Ydyn a welodd Sion le]the man C+agr Sion sawthe man thal Sion saw
• (111 )
t-V t-ky dyn a welodd Sion
•
•
In example (110), there is no subject agreement because the subject NP
is [-pronominal]. However, given the same structure with a pronominal subject,
agreement is established at TP even though the [V+T] complex has raised
further to C.
(112) Ydyn a welsant (hwy) [elthe man C+agr saw-3pl (they)the man rhal they saw
The head of TP dominates the trace of a morphologically complete item
([V+T]), and the spec of TP dominates the pleonastic head of the chain created
by the pronominal subject. 'This satisfies the requirements of a licit SpeclHead
Case configuration. Accordingly, personlnumber agreement triggered by Case
licensing of a pronominal subject in specITP is found in affirmative relative
clauses as long as it is not the subject itse1f that is relativized. If the subject is
99
•
•
relativized, then both the head and specifier of TP dominate a trace, and TP is
not a licit Spec/Head Case configuration.
In this way, the agreement patterns and complementizer selection
associated with the direct and indirect strategies reflect the S-structure position
where Case-licensing takes place. In the following section, l present data from
wh-que:;~ons and clefts which provide additional support for a Case-based
treatment of agreement and complementizer selection.
2.6.5. WB-QUESTIONS AND CLEFfS: THE "1NDIRECX'"COMPLEMENllZER WlTB THE "DIRECX'" AGREEMENT PATI'ERN
With respect to the choice of complementizer and the agreement pattern,
wh-clefts and questions in Welsh pattern with relative clauses; the direct pattern
is found if the subject or the direct object of an inflected V is questioned or
clefted. Otherwise, the indirect pattern is required. These data were given in
(39)-(42).
In Welsh, relative clauses may not be headed by a PP. However, in
clefts and questions, there are two options: stranding the preposition or pied
piping the whole PP. If the preposition is stranded, we find the typical indirect
pattern: the complementizer is y(r), and agreement surfaces on the stranded P.
This is illustrated in (113).
(113) [Pa tren] Y darllenodd y dyn Y llyfr [amo le]]?which train C read-3s the man the book on-3sgmWhich train did the man read the book on?
However, ifpied-piping occurs, the y(r) complementizer is still required,
but there is neither an agreement marker nor a pronoun marking the extraction
site.
100
• (114) [Ar ba tren] y darllenodd y dyn y llyfr [el?on which train C read-3s the man the bookOn which train did the man read the book?
These facts provide support for the account proposed herc, which derives
agreement marking and complementizer selection by Case-licensing. Given that
a is the rea1ization of [C+agr], it should surface only with A'-ehains which are
Case-ehecked. Since a pp chain does not require Case, we predict that
agreement will not be triggered on C.
In this way, questioning, clefting or relativizing elements that are not
assigned Case should always exhibit the y(r) complementizer, in spite of the
apparent gap in the relativized position. This prediction is correct, as illustrated
in (115).
(115) [Pa bryd] Ydaw ef [el?what time C will-eome-3s heWhen will he come?
[Sadler 1988:166]
2.6.6. LoNG-DISTANCE RELA1IVIZAll0N
As mentioned earlier, the so-ca11ed indirect strategy of relativization is
found when relativization takes place out of an embedded clause. Thus, even
subject relativization, which exhibits the direct agreement pattern in both
periphrastic and non-periphrastic sentences, confonn to the indirect pattern
when in an embedded context.
(116) NON-EMBEDDED SUBJECT:
y dynion a ddarllenodd y llyfrthe men C+Agr read the bookthe men thor read the book
101
•
•
(117) EMBEDDED SUBJECT:
y plant y dywedodd Wyn y darllenasant [el y llyfrthe children C said Wyn C read-3pl the bookthe children thot vryn said had read the book
These cases reflect a wh-movement strategy, as shown by the
unacceptability of a pronominal in the relativization site, a fact attested to by
Sadler (1988: 112). The proposai that these structures involve wh-movement is
also supported by crossover effects, cited in Hendrick (1988:185ff).
(117b) Ybachgen ddywedodd e oedd Mair wedi sôn arndano [elthe boy C say-past he be-past Mary PT talk about-3sgmthe boy thot he said Mary had been taIking about
[Hendrick 1988:192]
The sentence is ungrammatical on the reading where [el is bound by the
pronominal e(j) ('he'). This would be surprising if [el is a resumptive pronoun.
According to the analysis proposed here, there must be a licit A'-chain
between the operator in the higher C and the reJativization site in the embedded
clause. However, instead of an agreeing form of C, we find person/number
agreement associated with subject agreement established at TP. Thus, agreement
with the reJativized subject is triggered not in the spec of the lower C, as it is in
direct reJativization, but in the spec of TP.
This fact is expected under the analysis presented here. The S-structure
of 10ng-distance reJativization is derived as follows. Wh-movement proceeds
through the spec of the lower C 10 the higher C. However, the V+T complex
raises 10 the lower C only if there is an operator in spec/CP. In these
constructions, the e1ement in spec of the lower C is a trace.
102
•
•
(118)
NP
y plant y dywedodd Wyn y darllenasant
t-v NP
y lIyfr
With a trace of the A'-chain in the specifier and a morphologically
complete member of the chain of a Case-licensing head in T, we expect the
lower TP 10 be the lowest licit SpeclHead configuration for agreement with the
A'-chain of the relativized subject.
It is worth noting that in Breton, a closely related language which has
similar agreement patterns in affirmative and negated relative clauses, long
distance relativization exhibits a distinct pattern. The embedded clause does not
exhibit subject agreement on the tensed verb; this can be contrasted with the
same sentences where the embedded clause is negated, in which case agreement
on the tensed verb is obliga1Ory, as in LW. This paradigm suggests that in long-
103
•
•
•
distance relativization in Brelon, V-to-C raising takes place regardless of the
presence of an Operalor in spec/CP.
(119) Ar baotred a soiij din a lenne al levriou a zo arnaii.the boys PT think to-lsg PT read-3sg the books PCL is hereThe boys tha! 1 think read the books are here.
(120) Pelore paotred a soiij deoc'h a lenne al levriou?the boys is PT think to-2sg PT read-3sg the booksWhich boys do you think read the books?
[Borsley & Slephens 1989:420]
(121) Ar baotred a soiij din ne lennent (*Ienne) kel al levriou a zoarnaii.the boys PT think to-lsg Neg read-3pl (*read-3sg) not the booksis hereThe boys tha! 1 think did net read the books are here.
(122) Petore paotred a soiij deoc'h ne lennent (*Ienne) ket al levriou?which boys PT think to-2sg Neg read-3pl (*lenne) not the booksl'tÏlich boys do you think did net read the books?
[Borsley & Stephens 1989:425]
In the following section, 1 retum to the role played by sentential negation in
relative clauses, and propose that the specifier ofNegP provides an A-position for
VSO direct objects in both matrix and relative clauses in LW.
104
• 2.7. CASE-UCENSING IN SPEclNEGP IN MAnux AND RELATlYE CLAUSES
2.7.1. NEGATED SUBJEcr RELATIYES
Let us first consider negated subject relatives, which show a fairly
straightforward pattern. Compare subject relativization out of an affirmative
sentence, as illustrated in (123), where agreement is not permitted, with the
negated case in (124), where personlnumber agreement is obligatory, and a
pronominal cannot surface in the relativization site.
(123) Ydynion a ddarllenodd (*ddarllenasant) y llyfrthe men C+Agr read (*read-3pl) the bookthe men who reat! the book
(124) Ydynion na ddarllenasant (*ddarllenodd) y llyfrthe men Neg read-3pl (*read) the bookthe men who didn't reat! the book
ln the preceding section, 1 argued that the difference between the direct
and indirect strategies derives from a difference in the S-structure position of the
Case-licensing head: whereas the 10west Case-licensing head for complements of
Ps, Ns and VNs remains in its projection, the Case-licensing head for the
subject and direct object raises to C. This results in distinct agreement marking
patterns. If the same reasoning is carried over 10 negated relatives, the pattern
we find suggests a paralle1 explanation: in negated relatives, the [V+'1]
complex does not raise 10 C, but rather remains in T.
1 have suggested that negation heads its own projection and is generated
above TP. 1 will further maintain that NegP intervenes between TP and CP,
lOS
•
•
blocking verb movement into C via the Head Movement Constraint (HMC;
Travis 1984).38
The HMC can be reduced ta the operation of the ECP as defined in
tenns of barriers (Baker (1988); Chomsky (1986a». The trace of a moved Xo
must be properly govemed and can only be licensed by the raised XO itse1f
through antecedent-government. This means that the antecedent-trace link of the
chain must not cross a barrier. An intervening head Y creates such a barrier.
This blocks XO-raising from skipping over an intervening head; such a chain
would include a trace that is not properly govemed.
If the claim that the Case-licensing head for the relativized subject (T)
remains in T is correct, then the lowest Case SpeclHead configuration for the
subject is specITP. As above, agreement realized on T surfaces as
morphological person/number agreement. The structure is given in (125).
(125)
NP,! Op-k
Y dynion C
yr
•welsant
t-V NP
1
y lIyfr
106
•
•
•
The presence of negation does not block wh-movement of the subject,
which proceeds as usual. This accounts for the unacceptability of a pronominal
doubling subject agreement in negated subject relatives.
(126) Ydynion na ddarllenasant (*hwy) y Ilyfrthe men Neg reaad-3pl (they) the bookthe men tJuu didn 't read the book
The analysis accounts straightforwardly for subject agreement on the
tensed verb and the ungrammaticality of a pronominal in subject position.
Unexplained, however, is the Jack of overt complementizer in the negated
relatives. Given the derivation shown above, we would expect the
complementizer yr to precede the negative marker ni(d). Instead, we find no
complementizer, and the negative marker surfaces as TUl(d).
There are !wo possible explanations for this facto The fact that the
negative marker never co-occurs with an overt complementizer could be
construed as support for the cIaim that the negative marker is itself generated
Jnder C; a position taken by Harlow (1981) and Sadler (1988). However, on the
assumption that negation heads a maximal projection itself, a more appropriate
explanation is that the negative marker found in negated relatives is a synthetic
fonn, created by the head of NegP raising te C.
For Neg-raising te C te occur, we must determine whether this raising
follows raising of the [V+1] complex te Neg. Such a derivation would be
permitted according te Rizzi & Roberts (1989), who propose a relaxation of
Baker's (1988) constraint on the structure of derived XOs. According te Baker,
an XO created by syntaetic adjunction cannot dominate a trace and a lexical item.
Thus, the derived structures on the right in (127) are both ill-fonned.
107
• (127)
x y X t
t Y
•
•
Rizzi & Roberts suggest that the lower structure is acceptable, as it is the
head of the newly created Xo that bas raised further, leaving behind a trace. This
possibility is restricted to the head itse1f; foIIowing Baker, they assume that the
y element cannot raise further, leaving X behind.
If we accept that these two possibilities are available in Welsh, and that
Neg-raising to a higher functional head is obligatory when such a projection is
generated, it is consistent with thlo fact that the form of the sentential negation
marker is different in main clauses and embedded contexts. Thus, nard) can be
viewed as the morphologicaI merger of the negative marker and the
complementizer yr.39 This is shown in (128).
(128)
Neg
"'i'-l,,,
1,,1
1V T
In this way, there are two potential derivations. In one, the [V+'I1
complex adjoins te Neg, and Neg then raises te C. In the other, the [V+'I1
lOS
•
•
complex remains in T, and Neg raises independently to e. In either derivation,
the merger of e and Neg results in the form nard). However. as is supported by
the presence of agreement triggered on T, in either derivation. the tensed verb
cannot raise al! the way 10 e.
However, there are certain problems associated with the proposai that
Neg-to-e raising follows [V+ T]-to-Neg raising. First, if [V + T] adjoins to
Neg, then we must determine what blocks further raising of the [Neg-V+T]
complex to e.
Second, if the [V+ T] complex raises 10 Neg, then under subject.:
relativization both the head and specifier of TP will dominate a trace; an illicit
SpeclHead Case configuration as defined by the Lee. Accordingly, we would
not expect 10 find personlnumber agreement associated with the subject on the
tensed verb in these cases. These issues are discussed in detail below. First, we
will present a potential derivation based on the claim common to both
derivations; that the [V+ T] complex does not raise to e in negated clauses.
2.7.2. NEGATED OBJEeI' RELA1lVES: NO AGREEMENT AND AREstlMP11VE PRONOUN STRATEGY
While the negated subject relatives are accounted for in a straightforward
manner under this analysis, the negated abject relatives show more interesting
behaviour. Here we find two different patterns. In the fust pattern, illustrated in
(129), the direct object pronominal is obliga1Ory.
•(129) a. y llyfr na ddarllenais i *(el)
the book Neg read-ls 1 (it)the book which 1didn 'r Tead
109
•
•
•
1 have suggested that the intervening negation prevents the verb from
moving into C. While this presents no problem for the relativized subject, for
which agreement is simply established at TP as opposee! to CP, it does present a
problem for the object: the same problem confronted by a VSO direct object in
non-relativized structures. As discussed earlier, the object of a finite verb in a
simple unrelativized structure has no licit agreement configuration; the only
position where the verb is morphologically complete is in T, whose specifier is
required for the subject. Since Case is claimed to be assigned under govemment
in this instance, agreement is not triggered at S-structure, and an in situ
pronominal is obligatory.
The situation for the direct object is similar in negative relatives, which
block V-raising to C. The V in T provides no licit Spec/Head configuration for
the direct object, because speclTP is reserved for the subject. This inability of a
relativized direct object to satisfy the LCC in negated relative clauses forces a
true resumptive strategy, the strategy found in relativization out of complex
NPs. In these cases, there is no wh-movement; a base-generated operator in
specfCP A' binds the object pronoun in its base-position.40 In this way, the
asymmetry between subjects and VSO direct objects in negated relatives is
captured: The former trigger agreement at TP and still undergo wh-movement,
but the latter trigger no agreement and cannot undergo movement.
This analysis also suggests an account of cases of extraction out of non
inflecting PPs. Such prepositions do not agree with a pronominal object.
(130) Siaradasoch chwi ag ef.talked-2pl you with bimYou taIked with him.
110
•
•
Not surprisingly. we find that if the object of such a preposition IS
relativized, the pronoun occurs obligatorily in base position.
(131) Ydyn y siaradasoch chwi ag efthe man C talked-2pl you with himlhe man lha! you talked with
1 maintain that these prepositions do not licence a specifier position.
Since the pronoun cannot enter into a chain with a pleonastic in spec/PP, it does
not have the option of bcing Case-checked in a Spec/Head configuration at
S-structure. The pronominal cannot drop, as pro is not identified by agreement
morphology on the governing head. Further, the lack of specifier means that a
complement of P has no way of moving out of PP. This forces a true
resumptive strategy.41
2.7.3. NEGATED OBJEcr RELATIVES: AGREEMENT ON NEGATION ANDARESUMl'TIVE PRONOUN STRATEGY
ln the alternative option of negated object relatives, we find an abject
agreement marker on the Neg element itself. Thus, (132) exists as a variant of
(129), with the 3sg agreement marker s surfacing on Neg. In these cases, the
object pronoun is optional.
(132) Yllyfr nas ddarllenais i (ef)the book Neg-3sg read-1s 1 (it)the book which J didn '1 read
The agreement paradigm for negation is given in (133) (adapted from
Sadler (1988:72».
111
• (133) lsg -m2sg -th3sg -sIpl -n2pl -ch3pl -s
Agreement is taken here to be a reflex of a licit SpeclHead configuration
at S-structure. Agreement on the Neg element leads us 10 posit that a licit
SpeclHead configuration can be established between the head of NegP and an
element in its specifier position; Le. NegP introduces a potential Case-liœnsing
configuration for the direct object.
•
•
Note, however, that this construction is unlike the indirect pattern of
relativization found with relativized subjects in negated clauses, in that a
pronominal is free to occur in direct object position, doubling agreement. This
is only possible where movement bas not occurred, e.g. in unrelativized
structures. The fuct that the pronominal can co-occur with the agreement marker
suggests that these reflect agreement with an A-chain, rather than with an
A'-chain formed by wh-movement.
By deriving object agreement on Neg by formation of a A-chain, we
expect the agreement that surfaces on Neg to appear in unrelativized structures
as well. This is illustrated in (134)-(135).
(134) N"1S gweIodd Wyn (el).Neg-3sg saw Wyn himll)'n did not see hïm.
112
• (135) Gwn nas gwel Wyn (el).know-lsg Neg-3sg see Wyn him1know rha! ltYn will ner see him.
[Awbery 1976:189]
Furthennore, as shown in (136), object agreement markers may appear
on Neg in relativized (or more genera11y A'-moved contexts) when the
relativized argument is not the object.
(136) Ydyn nas gwelodd (el)the man Neg-3sg saw-3sg (him)rhe man who didn't see him
In this way, the issue of agreement on Neg is quite separate from the
issue of relativization. The possibility of a VSO direct object triggering
agreement on Neg is not dependent on wnether or not it enters into an A'
relation. It is simply a Case-licensing option made available by the projection of
sentential negation. Accordingly, our analysis of agreement surfacing on Neg
will paralle1 our analyses of agreement surfaeing on prepositions and [-tense]
verbs in non-relativized contexts: triggered by a chain created at S-strueture and
headed by a null pleonastie in specifier position.
However, this paradigm, specifie to VSO direct objects, differs from
agreement in non-relativized contexts in one important respect. In non
relativized contexts, agreement is genera11y required wherever it is possible;
otherwise, an in situ pronominal is obligatory. In negated VSO direct object
relatives, however, agreement may, but need not, surface on the negative
partïc1e. Naturally, if there is no agreement, then the pronominal is obligatory,
just as in the non-relativized contexts.
113
•
•
There are two reasons to consider an alternative to this proposaI. First,
the claim that the head of NegP provides an A-position in which an NP can be
Case-ehecked constitutes a fairly radical departure from previous claims about
the properties of this projection. Second, agreement on Neg is optional, unlike
agreement on other heads in Weish. l will first consider an account which will
derive both the optionality of agreement and the Case-ehecking ability of Neg
by optional V-raising to Neg. However, this will be rejected in favour of an
analysis that incorporates an optional chain formation operation with a
pleonastic in speclNegP that is independent of V-raising.
The apparent optionality could in principle be related to the two
proposed S-sttucture positions of the [V+ 11 complex in negated clauses
out1ined above: T and Neg. It is not implausible that agreement on Neg should
depend on whether or not the tensed verb adjoins to the head of NegP in
negative clauses, and that if V-to-Neg movement does occur, the spec of NegP
can (and therefore does) provide a Case-position for the direct object. If the
verb remains in T, no such position wouId be available for the direct object, and
a resumptive pronoun would be required. In this way, it would not be agreement
but rather V-raising which encodes an optional aspect. The claim, then, wouId
be that the spec of NegP can provide pronominal objects in non-periphrastic
sentences with a way of satisfying the S-sttucture Case-Iicensing requirement,
but that this ability is dependent on V-raising to Neg.
One way of implementing this technically wouId be 10 cIaim that the
[Case] feature of a verb is inherited by the head of a functional projection that it
raises into. Thus, if a [+Case] verb raises into Neg, the specifier of NegP
becomes a licit SpeclHead Case configuration.
114
•
•
However, this proposaI is incompatible with the proposaI that agreement
is triggered at the lowest !icit Spec/Head configuration (CAR).'fhe crucial case
involves subject relativization in negated clauses. Specifica1ly, if we allow the
[V+'1'] complex to raise to Neg but block it from further raising to C, then
there will be no !icit Spec/Head configuration for the subject NP. Both the head
and specifier of TP would dominate a trace, and spec/CP could not provide a
!icit Case position because the head of C wouid not contain the Case-licensing
head, T. Thus, Case-licensing of the subject in specITP would be expected only
in those cases where the [V+'I'] complex does not raise to Neg. Since we have
associated V-raising to Neg with the appearance of object agreement on Neg,
we would not expect any su!lject agreement on the raised verb when object
agreement is triggered on Neg. This prediction is incorrect.
Since subject agreement is found in ail negated relatives, whether the
direct option agreement option is taken or not, we cannot say that the optionality
derives from optiOnal V-raising to Neg. This is discussed further below.
2.7.4. ON THE AuroNOMY OF NEG AS A C~LICENSING HEAD
This analysis finds itself confronted with !WO possible explanations for
the appearance of agreement on Neg. In one, the ability to Case-license an NP
is dependent on V-raising. This approach bas the benefit of relating the Case
licensing potentia1 in speclNegP to the verb, which is a somewhat less
controversial c1aim than attributing Case-licensing capability to the head of
NegP itself. It also bas the benefit of capturing the optionality of object
agreement on Neg by maintaining that agreement is obligatory whenever it is
possible. However, it fails to prediet the appearance of subject agreement on a
ilS
•
•
•
tensed verb in all negated clauses, whether object agreement on Neg surfaces or
not.
In the second option, where [V+Tl does not raise te Neg, the specifier
of NegP provides an A-position in which the chain of the direct object can be
Case-ehecked, independently of V-raising. This has the benefit of correctly
deriving the agreement facts in negated clauses, and removes the need for
invoking language-specifie morphological constraints te block further raising te
C, but requires optional Case-licensing in speclNegP, apparently a unique
optionality in the agreement system of Literary Welsh.
The fact that, like objects of prepositions and [-finite) verbs, relativized
subject NPs never trigger agreement on Neg in negated relatives provides sorne
additional support for the claim that [V+Tl does not raise te Neg. If we allowed
such movement, then speclNegp would be a lower potential Case-position for a
relativized subject in negated relative clauses, and we would expect subject
agreement on Neg. An earlier analysis of these structures (de Freitas & Noonan
1993) required that speclNegP be specifical1y reserved for direct objects, a bald
stipulation, in order te block this possibility. However, if [V+Tl never raises te
Neg, then the agreement triggered at TP is predicted in negated clauses, and
there is no need te specifical1y reserve speclNegP for the direct object. This
restriction follows from our definition of a !icit SpeclHead configuration and the
operation of the CAR.
Whether or not the head of NegP depends on V-raising in order te Case
license an NP in its specifier could conceivably be determined by finding data
where a lexical item intervenes between the negative marker and the tensed
verb, and object agreement still surfaces on the negative head. This would
116
•
•
demonstrate that the head of NegP can independently Case-license the chain of
the direct object. However, 1 have found no data where lexical material (other
than object agreement) intervenes between sentential negation and the tensed V.
Another possible test could come from [-finite] clauses, which exhibit
SVO order. Accordingly, if sentential negation is S-initial, the subject would
intervene between negation and the tensed V. If agreement surfaces on Neg it
cannot be due to V-raising. Again, though, this potential disambiguating data is
not avai1able, because sentential negation is not generated in [-finite] clauses in
We1sh. Instead, the negative verb peidio ('cease') is used (see Chapter 4, section
4.3.1).
Accordingly, we can neither definitively reject nor confirm the
hypothesis that [V+1] never raises to Neg by appealing to word-order facts.
However, this claim (and the accompanying claim that the head of NegP can
Case-license a chain in its specifier independently of V-raising) follows from the
proposais made in this thesis conceming the definition of a licit SpeclHead Case
configuration and the CAR (the Condition on Agreement Rea1ization).
Accordingly, we will conclude that the [V+1] complex remains in T in negated
clauses, and that the head of NegP left-adjoins to C independently in negated
relative clauses, resulting in the fused form 1Ul(d) [ni(d) + y(r)] at PF. We will
maintain that the possibility of triggering agreement on Neg is optional, unlike
other agreement paradigms in We1sh.42,43
2.7.4.1. REsnuCIlONS ON AGREEMENT ON NEG
The only NP in a sentence which can trigger agreement on Neg is the
direct object of a [+tense] verbe Direct objects in periphrastic sentences do not
have this option; agreement must surface on the [-tense] verb.
117
•
•
•
(137) *Nis wnaeth y plant darllen [el.Neg-3sg did the children readThe chi/dren did net read it.
(138) Nid wnaeth y plant ei ddarllen [el.Neg did the children 3sg readThe chi/dren did net read it.
Furthermore, the object of an inflecting preposition cannot trigger
agreement on Neg.
(139) *y dyn nas canodd Sion amthe man Neg-3sg spoke Sion aboutthe man tha! Sion didn 't speak about
(140) Ydyn na canodd Sion amdanothe man Neg spoke Sion about-3sgthe man tha! Sion didn't speak about
The restriction of agreement on Neg to VSO direct objects follows from
the CAR; speclNegP will be the lowest licit Spec/Head configuration only for
these arguments. Complements of tensed verbs are exceptional in that their
Case-licensing head, V, is morphologically incomplete until it raises to T. In a
sentence without a pre-sentential NegP, the complement of the V bas no licit
agreement position. However, if a NegP is generated, this creates a licit
configuration for the complement of the tensed V which is also the lowest such
configuration.
The lowest licit Spec/Head configuration for a periphrastic direct object
or an inflecting preposition, however, is defined by the S-structure position of
Ils
• the untensed V or P. Accordingly. agreement is established at the lower VP or
PP.
These facts are illustrated in the structure in (141). The lowest licit
SpecJHead configuration for the prepositional complement is speclPP; the
lowest such configuration for \he subject is specITP. SpecfNegP is the lowest
licit Case configuration only for a VSO direct object.
•
(141)
P NP3
i it... _._.•._ __ __...i
2.7.4.2. A-CBAJNs: CREAnON BY INDEXAnoN vs. MOVEMENT
•
As noted above, although there is an agreement position (speclNegP) for
the direct object, the direct object still cannot undergo operator movement 10
speclCP in negated relative clauses, as is the case with the normal indirect
strategy (i.e. periphrastic direct objects). This is evident from the optional
surfacing of the pronominal, an option unavai1able in relativized contexts
119
•
•
•
derived by operator movement. Thus, the agreement pattern for VSO direct
objects in negated relatives is triggered by an A-chain and is unaffected by
relativization; relativizing a direct object still requires a non-movement strategy
with a base-generated operator.
This raises the following question: Why is a resumptive strategy forced
in such cases? Since agreement on Neg would in principle satisfy the LCC (a
condition on A' chains), why is operator movement te spec/CP not pennitted?
1 will offer the following explanation, which invokes a distinction
between A- and A'-movement. It has been maintained here that an element
moving te spec/CP is Case-licensed as low as possible in the structure. In this
way, a relativized argument moves through its lowest Case position before
raising to spec/CP. If this is taken to imply that it must A-move to its lowest A
position, and then proceed by A' movement to spec/CP, then we see why such
movement is not pennitted for VSO direct objects. They are the only arguments
whose A-position (in specfNegP) is higher than the A-position of the subject.
Given the restrictive theory of movement proposed by Sportïche (1988,1990),
where all A-movement must proceed through each intervening specifier, in
order to A-move to spec/NegP the object would have te move through speclTP,
which is occupied by the subject.44 As shown in (142), skipping over this
position would create an ill-fonned chain.
120
•
•
(142)
Op-k
/,'-,,,,: Neg + C t-k: i .If', , ,. , ,• J 1,
A' movement
: ~k
l-----X---------------J ! t-V t·k,
A-movement : ', '... J
We are thus 100 to the conclusion that, although the creation of an A
chain by indexation with a pleonastic in spec of NegP is possible across the
subject, A-movement to that position, which necessari1y includes A-movement to
speclNegP as an initial step, is not permittOO; at least, not in the syntax. This
condition would have to be reIaxOO at LF, assuming LF expletive replacement in
line with Chomsky (1986a).
In a sense, what is proposed for A-ehains is implicit in sorne of the
literature on resumptive strategies in A' chains: A'-binding of a pronoun in situ
by a base-generated operator is subject to less severe locality conditions than
syntaetic A'-movement. (McCloskey (1990), Shlonsky (1992» Here the same
claim is made for A-ehains: chain formation by indexation is less restricted !han
chain formation by movement.
121
•
•
To conclude, under this analysis there are only two possibilities for
direct objects of verbs to undergo operator movement: (i) if the verb does not
raise out of VP (in infinitivaIlperiphrastic constructions), and (ii) if the verb
raises aIl the way ta C (in non-negated object relatives). This restriction on wh
movement for direct objects in Welsh follows from the fuct that they can be
Case-licensed higher in the tree than subjects, but cannot A-move to that
position.
In spite of the technicaI questions raised by proposing that the vsa
direct object agreement found on Neg results from the creation of an extended
A-ehain, 1 would claim that this is plausible. This kind of agreement is already
remarkable in that it is the only apparent case of optionality in the agreement
system in LW, a characteristic that raises problems for any treatment.
Furthermore, the potential doubling occurrence of a pronominal in argument
position is consistent with the idea of a base-generated chain rather than with a
chain formed by movement.4S
abject agreement on the sentential negation marker is an instance of a
more generaI phenomenon in Welsh. Agreement with vsa direct objects is
found on other pre-sentential particles as weIl, and just as in the case of
agreement on Neg, it is optional. Consider (143).
(143) Fe'i ddarIlenodd y plant.EMPH-3sg read the children'Ihe children read il.
[Rouveret 1990:51]
This raises the possibility that sententiaI negation may be one
instantiation of a more generaI functionaI category (Laka (1990). A crucial
122
• question, then, is whether there is a functional projection NegP which is distinct
from the projection generated by these other sentential markers.
2.7.5. OmER PRE-SENTENllAL MARKERs IN WELSH
Jones & Thomas (1977:357ff) describe the situation pre-theoretically as
follows: there are three distinct pre-sentential markers which occur on matrix
sentences, marking the sentence as declarative, interrogative, or imperative.46
Each of these markers can be positive or negative. There are additional markers
which appear in 'fronting' contexts, which they define as questions, clefts, and
relative clauses.
•(144)
DECLARATIVE
positivenegative
INTERROGATIVE
positivenegative
IMPERATIVE
positivenegative
FRONTING
positivenegative
MATRIX
milje/i47
nï(d)
aonï(d)
na(c)
EMBEDDED
y(r)nard)
aIy(r)nard)
Below, 1 will propose a treatment for the pre-sentential markers in Welsh
which distinguishes NegP and CP from what will be termed IllP, or
lliocutionary Phrase.48
123
• 2.7.5.1. NEGPvs. CP
•
•
In the analysis presentee! above, 1 have analyzed the pre-sentential
particle in what Jones & Thomas refer to as fronting contexts as the head of CP
(a being the agreeing form, y(r) being the non-agreeing counterpart of Cl. The
particle nard) is analyzed as resulting from the morphological merger of the
head of NegP (ni(d)) with a non-agreeing form of C, y(r).
The ni(d)/na(d) altemation has received sorne attention in the lite:ature.
Awbery (1977) concludes that the: are in fact the same lexical item, and that a
rule gives the correct vowel in each case.49 Another possibility, adoptee! by
Harlow (1981) and Sadler (1988), is that nard) is a negative complementizer,
generated under C. The fact that this marker never coincides with an c','ert
complementizer of the form y(r) or a could be considered good support for this
hypothesis. Laka (1990) uses similar complementary âistribution facts from
English and Basque to argue for a single functional category, Sigma-phrase,
which can be headee! by elements conflating a similar collection of illocutionary
features to those seen here.
Problematically, if we adopt Laka's argumentation for a unified account
of the pre-sentential elements in negative relative clauses in Welsh, and claim
that nard) is a negative complementizer, we lose our account for the indirect
pattern of agreement required for relativized subjects and VSO direct objects in
negative relative clauses. If nard) is simply a negative complementizer, we
would expect agreement to be triggered at CP when the subject of a negated
relative clause is relativized, in the same way that it is triggered on the
affirmative complementizers. Instead, we find that subject relativization exhibits
the indirect pattern (obligatory subject agreement on the tensed verb, and an
obligatory empty category in the subject argument position).
124
• The daim that nard) is a base-generated negative complementizcr could
be salvaged if we stipulate that the [V +T] complex can only raise to C if the
head of C is not negative; the lowest Spec/Head configuration for the subject
would be TP, and the person/number agreement on the verb would be predicted.
Alternatively, it could be claimed that the lack of subject agreement on nard)
results from an idiosyncratic morphological gap in Welsh, such that there is no
[+agr] form of the negative complementizer. However, such a daim would
encounter problems with direct objects. As discussed at length above, direct
object agreement can surface on nard). However, the kind of agreement that
optionally surfaces on nard) does not pattern with agreement on C. First of all,
there is its optionality. Second, there is the acceptability of a pronoun doubling
the agreement.
(145) Y dyn nas welais i (ef).the man Neg-3sg saw-lsg 1 (him)The man rhal 1didn 'r see
(146) Y dyn a welais i (*ef).the man C+Agr saw-lsg 1 (*him)The man rhal 1saw
If we claim that nard) is a negative complementizer that can only surface
with direct object agreement, then we would expect wh-movement of the direct
object to spec/CP, leaving a trace in its base position, just as is the case in an
affirmative relative clause. In such sentences, we would expect an in situ
pronominal ta be ungrammatical, and this is not the case.
Accordingly, instead of daiming that negation interferes with V-raising
and having the differences between subjects and objects faU out from more
125
• general principles, one would have to propose that negation interferes in sorne
way with wh-movement of direct objects only. It will therefore be maintained
that NegP has a syntactic status independent of the CP projection, and that both
NegP and CP are generated in negated relative clauses. Below, 1 will propose
that NegP is also distinct from the projection headed by the other pre-sentential
particles found in LW.
2.7.5.2. NEGP vs. ILLP
•
•
First, note that the agreement paradigm on the negative marker differs
from that on the other pre-sentential markers. Specifically, agreement with 3rd
person singular and plural direct objects on the negative particle differs from the
3sg agreement that surfaces on the other pre-sentential particles, and the number
distinction found on the other particles with 3rd persan agreement is lost on
Neg.
(147)
Neg other pre-sentential particlesIs m m2s th rh3s s iIpl n n2pl ch ch3pl s u
Assuming that Case-checking is sensitive ta the properties of the head
defining the SpeclHead configuration, it is plausible that this differing
agreement pattern reflects the distinctive properties of the head cf NegP.
Another potential argument for a distinct NegP follows from co
occurrence restrictions on the other pre-sentential markers. These markers are in
126
• complementary distribution. Thus, there are no forms combining interrogative,
declarativelemphatic or imperative. The impossibility of combining these forms
is consistent with a treatment where they are distinct potential heads of a non
iterating llIocutionary Phrase. However, forms combining negation with these
other markers do occur. The examples below illustrate the negative-interrogative
combination.
(148) Ni ddarllenodd Sion y Ilyfr.Neg read-3sg John the bookJohn didn't read the book.
(149) Oni ddarlenodd Sion y Ilyfr.Q-Neg read-3sg John the bookDidn't John read the book?
• [Sadler 1988:6]
(150) Nid oedd John yn chwerthin.Neg was John PROG laughJohn was not Iaughing.
(151) Onid oedd John yn chwerthin'?Q-Neg was John PROG laughWasn't John Iaughing?
[Jones & Thomas 1977:358]
This is consistent with the claim that, while the markers indicating
Declarative, Interrogative, and Imperative may be alternative functional heads
of a single phrase, TIlP, NegP is generated independently.So
A further restriction supports our hypothesis that the pre-sentential
markers indicating illocutionary force are distinct from NegP and CP. Urlike
127
•
•
the particle y(r) that 1 have analyzed as a complementizer, which appears only in
embedded clauses (its surface form varying according te whether it combines
with Neg and whether it is in an agreement configuration at S-structure), and the
negative particle ni(d), which occurs in both embedded and matrix clauses (its
surface form also varying depending on other functional heads with which it
combines and whether it is in an agreement configuration at S-structure), the
pre-sentential interrogative, imperative and declarative markers are restricted to
matrix sentences, whether negative or affirmative. 51 This suggests that not only
can NegP be distinguished from the pre-sentential particles that indicate
iIlocutionary force, but these in tum can be distinguished from
complementizers.
This line of reasoning leaves us with a three-way distinction, between a
CP headed by y(r), a NegP headed by ni(d), and an D1P headed by the
DECL(arative), INT(errogative), or IMP(perative) marker. This is iIlustrated in
(152).
(152) D1PDECL: Tnilfe/iINT: aIMP: B
CP y(r)
NegP ni(d)
The other surface forms are derived as in (153).
128
• (153) Neg+CNeg+INTNeg+IMPNeg+DECL
= nard)= oni(d)= na(c)=ni(d)
What the projections NegP and lllP have in common is that an A-ehain
can optionally be created by indexation between a pronominal direct object and
a null pleonastic in their specifier, triggering agreement. However, only the
spec/CP is a landing site for A'-movement (where agreement is incompatible
with an in situ pronominal); the specifiers of lllP and NegP are only available to
Case-license the head of an A-ehain created by indexation.
2.7.6. PROBLEMS WlTB LoNG A-CRAINS
•This analysis includes a potential A-position for the direct object in
simple VSO sentences (spec/NegP or spec/lllP) that is higher than the A
position for the subject. A way in which this can be implemented technica1ly is
by appealing to a notion of complete .fùnctional complex. in the sense of Aoun
(1981) and Chomsky (19800): if the verb (the theta assigner) taises over the
subject, then it extends the A-domain for the object 50 that it is able to form an
A-ehain across the subject.52
Note that this dilemma is not unique to the analysis presented here.
Given a combination of the VP internaI subject hypothesis and the hypothesis of
Case-ehecking in spec/AgrO for objects (where AgrOP dominates the maximal
projection of V), the definition of acceptable NP-movement will have to be
adjusted in any case, sinee the object NP will have to A-move to its Case
position across the D-strueture position of the subject.'3
Among the predictions that might follow from such a daim is that
binding facts in LW would parallel those exhibited in Ergative languages.
129
•
•
•
However, it has been maintained that A-movemeru of the direct object to a
position higher than the A-position of the subject is prohibited. Accordingly,
these effects might not be instantiated in the same way as if the object actually
moved te an A-position higher than the subject
2.7.7. CONCLUSION
This anaiysis of sententiai negation and agreement patterns in matrix and
relative clauses in WeIsh rests on the following assumptions about Case:
(i) Structural Case is checked in a SpeclHead configuration at Sstructure or at LF.
(ii) Agreement is a reflex of structural Case-checking at S-structure(either by movement to spec or by chain-formation).
(iii) In WeIsh, non-pronominai NPs are Case-checked at LF, andpronominai NPs are Case-checked at S-structure by chainformation (when possible).
1 have argued that the difference between the direct and indirect
strategies does not reflect a movement versus non-movement strategy, but rather
variations in the S-strueture position of Case-licensing heads. Under this
anaiysis, there are only three cases where a resumptive strategy is forced: when
the reIativized argument is (i) the VSO direct object in a negated clause, (ri) the
complement of an uninflecting preposition, or (Iii) in a complex or coordinate
NP island.
This anaiysis provides a natura! account for ways in which subjects and
direct objects pattern tegether with respect te reIativization in WeIsh, as weIl as
130
•
•
for those ways in which they differ. Furthermore, the definition of licit
SpeclHead configuration accounts for the lack of direct object agreement on
tensed verbs.
With respect ta negation in Welsh, 1 have maintained that NegP
influences Case (and hence agreement) in two ways. First, it is generated
between CP and TP and blacks movement of the [V+T] complex to C. Thus,
Case-checking of a relativized subject takes place in spec/CP in affirmative
clauses but spec/TP in negated clauses.
Furthermore, 1 have proposed that NegP provides a licit Spec/Head
configuration for Case-licensing VSO pronominal direct objects. The
pronominal object is thus provided with a licit SpeclHead configuration and can
be Case-checked at S-structure. This procedure is reflected in agreement on
negation itse1f.
1 have argued that Case-checking of either the subject or the direct object
in We1sh takes place in spec of CP if the [V+T] raises to C. In other words, an
NP can be Case-licensed in that position. However, it is not an A-specifier,
because A' binding takes place from that position. The analysis thus allows for a
subject or direct object NP to be Case-licensed in an A' position.54
2.8. ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 2
IThe endiDg -odd in this seotence does Dot mark agrœmeDt; the relativized NP isplural but the verb is iDflected for 3sg-past. The 3sg endiDg is used as a default wheo teDSC butDot agrœmeDt is triggered, as there is DO morpheme that marks teDse &IODe. The 3sg f?rmappears OD the teosed verb with DOD-proDOminal NP subjecls. See Harlow (1981) for discUSSl°D•
2 See Sadler (1988:19f1) for arguments in Cavour of &DaIyzing Welsh as having a VPcoDSlitueDt.
3Wbether this verb is inserted dinlctly UDder T Or raised from a lower positiOD (i.e.AGR, as in the Pollock (1989) &DaIysis) will he left open.
131
•
•
•
4Welsh differs crucially from Irish in this respect. In Irish, neither a pronominaJ nora non-pronominaJ subject cao C<HlCCur with inllection on the verb. Furthermore, whereas Irishinllected paradigms are incomplete, Welsh bas complele paradigms for those ilems which doinllect for agreement features.
SNole that these inflected prepositions contain a consonant (-<i) inlervening betweenthe preposition (am) and the agreement marking (ano). Rouveret (1991) proposes an interestinganalysis of inflected prepositions as motphologically complex clements, consisting of apreposition, an intervening functional head (DEl), and agreemenL
6In eolloquial Welsh (eN), it is becoming increasingly acceptable ta have an in situpronominaJ when the head of a possessive NP is relativized, questioned, or clefted. 1 do DOthave an explanation for this fact, other !ban ta suggest that perilaps wh-movement in general islosing out ta a resumptive strategy in CYl. Nole that, even in dialects which permit doubling inthese cases, the constraint against doubling agreement holds when the extraeled clement is aproper name: Emrys y gwekzis i ei llyfr ("ej) ('It's Emrys whose book 1 saw') (Awhery1976:79fl).
7Nole that in WeIsh, as in Irish, agreement is with the first member of a conjoinedNP. This bas been argued ta he related ta an asymmetrical structure for these phrases in Irish(Noonan 1992). We will DOt address this issue hore.
8Sec also ShIonsky (1992) for an analysis of relativizatiOll strategies in Irish, Hebrewand Palestinian Arabic !hat argues for a movement vs. non-movement analysis.
9Nole that an apparent subject-<lbject asymmetry does appear in lIegaled relativeclauses, but direct object relativization out of negated clauses does not pattern with the indirectstrategy; rather, it pattems with non-relativized structures. These constructions are discussed indelai! in sectiOll 2.7.
IllHarlow (1981:217). Sadler (1988:250, fil. 4) notes that Harlow must mean'properly govemed' bore.
llSec Sells (1984) for an alternative way ofavoiding the predicted asymmetry.
12Harlow cIaims that since insertion of the dummy verb gwneud blacks pruning, theuse of the y comple:lCtlti= is correctly predicled for these structures. This is similar taRouveret's (1990) cIaim that the barrierbood of a verb-noUll phrase (VNP) is neutralized by Vraising; a process DOt instantiated in periphrastic sentences.
13Harlow (1981:242ft).
14 Regarding the collleSted status of a, Morris·Jones (1931) considers it a pronOUll,but McCloskey (1978) argues that the Irish equivalent (aL) is not a pronOUll, because it Iacksnumber and gonder features. However, as Harlow notes, these features are oftell neutralized inrelative prollOUllS, cf. English who vs. he, she, they. For many speakers ofEnglish, Case is aIsoDeutralized iD these proDOUDS, and occasiona11y even the p"jmpte'jnanjmate distinction (tM manwhich 1 WQS talking to, the book which 1 WQS Tt:Dding). Sec Sadler (1988) for a critique ofHarlow's cIaim regarding the status of a. Also sec Borsley (1984), Fife (1986) and Borsley(1987) for an exchange ofviews on this matter.
132
•
•
•
lSNotc:. how~vc::r. that this is c:qually truc:: of the:: r;:h:m~nt yr. which Rouycrct doc::.... notanalyu: as a cHtic. This wc:.akens his argument.
16n,e fact that an overt pronoun cannot occupy lhe relalivi2Cd position in an indiroctrelative, which mak~ il strikingly difft:n:nt from a non-rdativiZ&:d ditic-eonfigul"dtion (a... ootooby Awhery (1976, 1977), Harlow (1981), Sadler (1988), and others), is mcntioned but notaddresse<! in Rouveret (1990: fn. 58).
17This analysis is a revi~ and c:xpandc:d version of a pap:r givcn with MalteNoonan at the 27th R.gional Meeting of th. Chicago Linguislics Society.
IgTh.re are sever.1 points wh.re additional functional calegories might facilitate theanalysis. Howevor, given th. vi.w of agreement as the surface reflex of a relationship helWeon aCase-Iiœnsing head and an eh:mc:nt in its ~-pc:cifit:r position. positing agreement phl1L~'\ issomc::what redundant. particularly sinet: th~ agreement phl".L~ ~m to require the pn:scnce ofhoads which have beon t.rmod ea....-a.o;sih'll.rs in th. pa.'l: [+Ten....] and verbs.
19Zanullini's (1991) ciaim that the lowor h""d T det.rmin.s the availability of thehighor phrase N.gP might he consid.re<! somewhat uninlUitive. Evidenc. for the d.pcndencyrelation helWeon N.gP and TP will he presente<! in th. chaptor on Colloquial W.bh. Th. facl'of LW are consistent with this claim.
2On. final (d) appcars only if th. following word is vowel-initial.
21If Wc:: do not assume that sc:ntential negation generatt:S a NegP. then an alternativepossibility for th. hase position of N.g would he in Comp. This is discus.~ in section 2.7.
22s.. Rouv.ret (1991) and Tarald.= (1992) for analyses of Celtic agreement a.'involving synlactic incorporation of an agreem.nt morph.mc. Tara1dsen argues againS! analyzingsubjcct v.rh agreement (and polentially all agreement) as Spcc/H""d agreement.
23A distinction helWcoo pronominals and non-pronominal NPs with rc';pcct tomov.ment into spec position is proposed in Johnson (1990) for English and Noonan (1992) forIrish.
24n,é claim that a full NP cannot creat. '"\Ich a chain is porhaps ,...rprising, andcertainly stipulativ•. 1 will tentatively suggest that only pronominals are define<! soldy in termsof specifications for th. f""lUres persan. numher. and g.nder. and are ,...fficienlly 'light' in thisrespect to form a chain with a nuU pleonastic. If this claim is correct, it could he rclatcd te th.arguments made by Noonan (1992) to account for th. fact that only pronominals cao undergo Sstructurc raising te specifior position in Irish. Th. chains iIIustratcd in (91) are essontially th.mirror imagé of th. chains shé dcscribcs for Irish pronominals. An alternative treatmont wouldappcal to Chomsky's (1992) di,'tinction helWcoo checking operations that must accur at Sstructure and those that tak. place at LF. However, further research is ""luire<! te adcquatelyaddrcss Ibis question.
133
•
•
•
25Note that this analysis does not "''luire a stipulation 10 the effect that the specrrp isin any way uservt!d for the subject. As will he clarified in the following sections, an NPgenelllled helow Delta (i.e. a direct object) bas an additional Case-liccnsing cption: Case undergovemment by the verb. In this way, a structure where the specrrp is used by the subject NPcao avoid a violalion of the Case filte<. If, on the other band, the specrrp were used by thedirect object. the subjecl NP (which is genelllted in spec/DeltaP) would not he in a position to heCase-licensed under govemment by the verb, and the structure would he ruled out.
26n,is could he achieved (a1heit with some not insignificant technica! difficulties) bya1lowing the IV +TI compl"" to lower at LF to a position where it could Case-liccnse the directobject. Altematively, it could he maintained that the notion of morphologica! completencss issimply irrelevanl at LF.
27One ""ample is the inability of such a complement 10 raise ouI of ilS base positionin wh-question, relative clauses, and clefts. To accounl for these fuelS while maintaining that ailheads project a sl""'ifier, one would have 10 propose that these prepositions do not project aspecifier until LF, a possibility that 1 prefer not to allow the grammar without more directt:vid~ce.
28This c1aim makes an interesting prediction. The pronominai vs. non-pronominalCase distinction is lost in this position. If the mechanism by which Case is assigned 10 VSOdirect objeclS is inlcrfcred with in some way. bath pronominal and non-pronominai NPs sbouldhe affected. 1 will retum to !his point in Chaple< 4.
29nùs is similar 10 the proposai made by Sportiche (1990, 1992) that movementthrough a pal1icular position allows a V to Case-license a direct object. Thanks to Daniel Valoisfor s"Uggesting how this could apply to the Welsb paradigm.
30nis additionai restriction will come into play in the anaIysis of Russian, wben: theprojection immediately dominaled by delta is not VP but NegP.
3lPreviolL< analyses include Sells (1984), wbo (working within a very different set ofassumptions from those adopted here) relates the pre-sentential particle a 10 leftward Caseassignment. In this paper also, a is closely tied to the presencc of a gap in the relativizedposition. Sells (1984:137ft) mentio:lS the \ack of parasitic gap constructions in Welsb as apossible argument against a movement anaIysis for direct and indirect relatives.
32The optionai surfacing of an in situ pronominal in constructions is also mentionedby Jones & Thomas (19n:181) in the con~t of a discussion of copy pronouns. They includethe sentence given below. wben: relativization is not from inside a compI"" NP. This suggeslSthat wh·movement is governed by additionai restrictions in Welsb, whicb we will not addressben:.
Dyma 'r dyn yr oeddwn i'n dadlace am y gem efa fo.bere the man PT was I-PROG argue about the game with-3sgm bimHt!:1'f! is the man that 1was arguing about the game wilh.
331 adopt the position that raising occurs wben: it must. The movemcnt of the tensedVIOC is driven by the presence of an Operator in SpeciCP. ta facilitate Casc-Iicensing of theA'-clIain of the re1ativized argument.
134
•
•
•
34nüs can be considen:<! in the spirit of Pesetsky's Earliness Prindpk. wbereby anoperation takes place as early as possible in the derivation, This ana\ysis diffe", from a previousversion pn:sentec1 al the CLS. wben: the CAR was formulatec1 sucb !bat agreement was realizodal the highesl licit S~ead configusation. That version requin:<! Iwo additional stipulationsnot required ben:; (1) !bat NP complements of prepositions and [-tense] verbs in sorne sense'know' wbat their Case-liccnsing head is. and (2) !bat the specifier of NegP is rcservcd for Caseliccnsing of a direct object pronominal. These stipulations are not requin:<! in the anaIysisproposcd here.
3S Sec SbJonsky (1992) for a proposai !bat sorne Cs licensc: an A-specifier. Under hisanaIysis. the operator in spocICP adjoins to CP al LF in order to be in an A-bar position. Welshdoes not lend support to this proposai. It wiU be shown !bat an object is not able to A-moveacross the subject in Welsh (negated object relatives). If Spec/CP were an A-position. then theobject would not be able to move there. and we would always have a forecd resumptive strategyfor non-negated object relativization.
36Note !bat agreement on functional categories is generally impoverishcd in Wc1sh.These facts are discusscd in section 2.7. If wc view agreement not rnerely as a formai liCCDSingrequirement but as having a functional role to play. the process clearly brea1cs down withagreement on C. Thus. the sentence y dyn a welodd ~ [the man C saw-3sg he] is ambiguousbetween the reading the man that M saw (where the fina1 pronominal is understood to be thesubject) and the man that saw him (where the fina1 pronominal is understood to be the directobject).
371 have includcd an Aspect phrase between the VP tiers. as proposcd by Travis(1991). For our purposes. however, the labeling of these markers is not crucial.
38This enlai1s !bat the inlervening functional head Neg croates a minimality barrierbetween the [V+Tl complex and its trace. Baker & Hale (1990) propose !bat the notion ofminimaljty as it pertains to the ECP be made sensitive to the distinction between lexical andfunctional heads, such !bat onIy a functional head is a minima1ity barrier for the chain of afunctional head, and onIy a lexical head is a minimaUty barrier for the chain of a lexical head.The ana\ysis proposcd here is consistent with this claim, since V-movement into T is asubstitution process, and the trace in T is the trace of the functional head, T. Thus. thefunctional head (Neg) creates a minimaljty barrier for the chain of the functional head T.
39An interesting aside here is !bat in data from Middle We1sh, when the negativemarker co-occuns wilh an OVer! complementizer, the complementizer is alwaya yr (Evans 1964).This is as expecled under our ana1ysîs, where an agreeing C would be impossible in a neptcdrelative clause.
40r leave the question ofwltether Ibis binding talces place al 5-Structure or al LF open(cf. McC10skey 1990 and Sblonsky 1992).
135
•
•
41Noonan (1992) points out lhat this paradigm closely resembles preposltlOnstranding facts in Dutch: Ibose prepositions lhat license a specifier position appear as apostposition if Ibeir complement is a pronoun, because Ibe pronoun moves 10 Spec position.Since Ibey provide a specifier position for Ibeir complement 10 move througb, Ibese are Ibeprepositions lhat cao he stranded in wb·movement constructions. Sec van Riem..<dij!:: (1978).Note also lhat in lhese instances, our analysis panillels lhat of RoUVerel (1990), in Ibe sense lhatIbe lack of specifier blocks movemenL
42There appears 10 he an optionality involving Ibe appearance of direct objectagreement on Ibe inserIed Case-licensor ""Iui:::J in negalcd lt3lIsÏtive clauses in PembrokesbireWclsh (sec Awbery (1991) and Cbapter 4 of this Ibesis), 50 this problem may he less critical!ban suggestcd bore. Furl1lermore, agreement on Neg ""IUÎres Ibe formation of an A-cllain !batcrosses Ibe position of Ibe subject, whicb may come al 50me oost 10 Ibe grammar.
43A question arises al this point. Anolber set of NPs whicb are unable 10 satisfy IbeS-structure Case-licensing ""Iuirement are objects of non-inflecting prepositions. Theseprepositions are analyzed bere as beads whicb do not project a specifier position. The specifierof NegP migbt provide a Case position for pronominal objects of non-inflecting prepositions asweil, triggering agreement and Iicensing pro-drop. However, what we find is !bat Ibecomplements of non-inflecting prepositions cannot trigger agreement on Neg, and mw>t surfacein silu. This is as expected, according 10 Ibe c\aim lhat Ibese prepositions do not generate aspecifier position. The lack of specifier means lhat Ibey cannot form an A-cllain wilb an clementoutside of Ibeir projection cilber by movement or by co-indexation, wilbout violating Ibe ECP.
44ne conclusion !bat A·movement would he blocked in this case al50 followsaccording 10 Rizzi's (1990) notion of relativized minimality, as Ibe clement in Specifier of TPwould induce minimality for Ibe moved objecL
4Snere is possible support for Ibe claim lhat Ibe A-cllain created by indexation overIbe subject is exceptional in olber respects as welI. Sadler (1988:76) states !bat Ibe process ofoptional VSO direct object agreement on negation is blocked if Ibe subject is overL Sbe givesIbe following sentence as an illustration: - ni'm gwelodd Sion (Neg·lsg saw Sion: 'Sion c1idn'tsec me'). Sec Campana (1992) for an account ofobject pronoun binding in an Ergative languagelhat migbt he applicable 10 Ibese structures in We1sh. However, olber data provided by Sadler(1988: 113) appear 10 contnulict this c\aim, and Ibe possibility of finding adclitional support forthis distinction must he left for future researcb.
46ne pre-sententia1 lIllUker descrlbed as Ibe declarative form for matrix affirmativeclauses is termed emphatic by my informants, who speak a North Wales clialecL For Ibem, presententia1 mi marlts emphasis, and ail olber pre-sententia1 lIIBIkers are cIropped (sec Cbapter 4).This may reflect ~onaI variation. This interesting question must await future researcb.
47The forms mi,Je. and i reflect regional variations.
4Snumks 10 M. Baker for suggesting this tenD.
49n.e form of !he negalcd complementi= nard) migbt he talten 10 inclieate !batnegation bas merged not wilb y(r) but rather wilb !he agreeing form of Ibe complementi=, a.However, Awbery (1977:189) mentions lhat in Middle We1sh Ibe form usee! in negalcd relativeswas ny(l) and bas evolved inlO nard) only in modern Welsh.
136
• 5~f the claim that thcre is a distinct NegP is corrdet. theu pnxiictions LOi ta theirrebtive position in the struclUre might be deriv<d from the type of agreement triggered un the.""fuse<! fonns. Specifica1ly. the CAR would force agreement te be eslllblish<d al the lowe.<l licilSpeclHead configuration. If we fi-.d s on these lIl:U'kers (the 3rd person agreement IIl:U'king thalsurfaces on Neg). it would constilUle an argument for generation of NegP below IllP.
51lt is plausible that only one UlP is permitted for every sentence, in the pragmnticsense of spuch oct. Thus, one cannotlll:U'k the higher clause as interrogative and the embedd<dclause as imperative; the illocutionary force necessarily bas scope over both clauses.
52The possibility of exlending the A-<1omain by movement of the thela as.<igner isdiscuss<d but not adopt<d in Sportiche (1990).
53 See Chomsky (1992) for a discussion of!his problem.
54rhis cc.nclusion is drawn for A-bar mov<d subjects in French and English inNoonan (1989) and investigat<d in grealer del:Ùl in Noonan (1992). It is alse suggest<d byKayne (1983:5fl). where an element piclcs up Case in COMP.
137
•
•
•
3. CHAPTER 3: SUBJECT-OBJECT ASYMMETRIES ANDDEFINITENESS EFFECTS IN THE GENITIVE OF NEGATION INRUSSIAN
3.1. INTRODUCfION
In this chapter, a correlation found in Russian between sentential
negation and changes in Case-marking will be exarnined, and the analysis of the
interactions between negation and Case developed in the preceding chapter will
be extended in two directions. We derive the apparent sensitivity of thlS feature
to the thematic roles of NPs in a sentence, in part by proposing that the position
of NegP in Russian is lower than in Welsh, and in part by localizing Genitive
Case-checking in the specifier of the functional category NegP. Two accounts of
the relationship between negation, Case and definiteness in Russian,
corresponding to two documented paradigms found among native speakers, will
be proposed and evaluated.
Determining whether an NP in a negated sentence has the option of
surfacing with Genitive Case is established by judgements concerning the
grammaticaIness of a given negative sentence. These judgements appear to be
consistent across dialects and levels of formality; an analysis which accounts for
them is given in Part 1. The intriguing but slightly rnurkier faets involving an
apparent definiteness/indefiniteness effect (specifically, the correIation of the
Genitive of Negation option with the interpretation of that NP as definite,
indefinite, or ambiguous) will be discussed in Part 2.
1 will rnaintain that NegP in Russian is generated as a funetional
projection between the two VP tiers. Thus, NegP is generated above the lower
VP tier which is present in all sentences (transitive and intransitive), not above
138
•
•
•
the higher VP tier, which is generaled only if 3 verb selects an exlemal
argument. The basic paradigm is outlined below.
3.2. INmALPARADIGM
In a negated transitive sentence, an NP thal would otherwise be assigned
Accusative Case can surface with Genitive.
(1) ja vizu kniguI-NOM see book-ACC1see a book.
(2) ja ne vizu kniguI-NOM Neg see book-ACC
(3) ja ne vizu knigiI-NOM Neg see book-GEN1don 't see a book.
[Neidle 1988:34]
The subject of a transitive sentence can never surface with the Geniùve
of negation; it is a1ways marked with Nominative, whether in an affirmative or
negated sentence.
(4) ni odna gazeta ne pecataet takuji erundunot one newspaper-Cem-NOM-sg Neg prints such nonsenseNo newspaperprintS sud! nonsense.
(5) *ni odnoj gazety ne pecataet takuju erundunot one newspaper-Cem-GEN-sg Neg prints such nonsense
[Pesetsky 1982:46]
139
•
•
The initial generalization is that direct objects in negated sentences have
an additional Case-licensing option not available in affirmative sentences, and
that this option is unavailable to subjects. However, two principal facts
complicate the paradigm. First, a.~ pointed out by Pesetsky (1982) and Neidle
(1988), the ability ta surface with the Genitive of Negation cannot be accounted
for by referring to S-structure grammatical relations like subject and object;
rather, the phenomenon is sensitive ta the thematic raIes of NPs.
Second, the Genitive of Negation is not obligatory where it is permined
in Russian. Thus, two negated sentences may be identical except for the Case
mar1àng on an NP, and this distinction appears ta carry information bearing on
the interpretation of the sentences.! These facts are summarized below.
3.2.1. INmANSITIVE SENTENCES: D-STRUCTURE GRAMMATICALRELATIONS AND THE GENlTIVE OF NEGATION
The term intransitive here refers to the praperty of a verb which
subcategorizes for only one argument; it does not specify whether that argument
is internal or external. Unlike the Nominative NPs in transitive sentences like
the one given in (5), Nominative NPs in sentences with certain intransitive verbs
do exhibit Genitive Case as an alternative in negated sentences. The
generalization is the following: while the Genitive of Negation cannot appear on
the sole argument of an intransitive verb if that argument is an AGENT, it is
permitted on the intemal argument of a verb in a negative intransitive sentence,
i.e. a PATIEN!' or THEME. It is also permitted on the internai argument of a
passive verb, which surfaces with Nominative Case in affinnative clauses. The
data in (6)-(9) are taken from Pesetsky (1982:42-62).
140
• (6) *takix sobak ne kusaetsjasuch dogs-fem-GEN-pl Neg bite-3sgSuch diJgs don 'r bite.
•
(7) ni odnogo goroda ne bylo vzjato (vragom)not one city-masc-GEN-sg Neg was taken-neut-sg (enemyINSTR)No ciry was raken (by rhe enemy).
(8) gribov zdes' ne rastetmushrooms-GEN-pl here Neg grow-3sgMushrooms diJn 'r grow here.
Under the assumption that D-structure encodes the basic thematic
relations in the sentence as determined by the argument structure of the
predicate, and S-structure reflects the position of arguments following the
application of move-a., the class of NPs that can surface with the Genitive of
Negation can be captured by appealing to the distinction between the D-structure
and S-structure positions of arguments. Thus, whiIe the NP dogs in (6) and the
NP mushrooms in (8) appear in the same S-structure position with Nominative
Case, they do not originate in the same position at D-structure.
With respect ta the Russian data, this hypothesis allows us to distinguish
between the NPs in intransitive sentences that can surface with the Genitive of
Negation from those that cannot, as weil as capture the common feature of the
NPs in transitive and intransitive sentences that can surface with the Genitive of
Negation, by making reference ta their D-structure position. Those that can
surface with the Genitive of Negation, like the direct objects of transitive verbs,
are internai arguments of the verb.
141
• 3.2.2. OPTIONAUTY AND (IN)DEFINlTENESS EFFEcrs
•
•
The second complicating factor involves the semantics of these
constructions. While the Genitive of Negation used to be obligatory in Russian,
negated sentences now exhibit an apparent optionality, illustrated in (9)-(10).
The direct object in a negated transitive sentence can appear either with
Accusative Case (as it would in the affirmative counterpart) or with Genitive
Case.
(9) ja ne vizu kniguI-nom Neg see book-ACC
(10) ja ne vizu knigiI-nom Neg see book-GEN1do not see a book.
It is well documented that these options have repercussions on the
interpretation of these sentences; specjfically, the choice of Case-marking
appears to be related to whether the NP in question is definite or indefinite. In
English, definite and indefinite NPs can be distinguished by the choice of
determiner, i.e. a book (mdefinite) vs. the book (definite). This contrast is not
overt1y Wllized in Russian. The resu1ting ambiguity with respect te the
deftniteness of a direct object NP assigned accusative Case is illustrated in (11).
(11) on cita kniguhe-NOM read book-ACCHe read a/the book.
Negated sentences in Russian can potentially be disambigœted with
respect te the definiteness of the direct object by the appearance of either
142
•
•
Genitive or Accusative Case. However, there is a lack of consensus on the exact
pattern of interpretations. Reformatskij (1967), cited in Neidle (1988:34), gives
the following contrast.
(12) ja ne vizu ImiguI-nom Neg see book-ACC1do nol see lhe book.
(13) ja ne vizu ImigiI-nom Neg see book-GEN1 do nol see a book.
Pesetsky (1982) states that an NP with the Genitive of Negation tends to
be interpreted as indefinite, and the non-Genitive option is ambiguous.
However, Neidle (1988) maintains that it is the Genilive option that is
ambiguous in this respect, and that the Accusative option forces a dejinile
reading of the NP. These apparently contradictory facts will be addressed in
Part 2 of this chapter.
In the following sections, 1 will concentrate on capturing the constraints
on which NPs have the option of surfacing with the Genitive of Negation. Only
after accounting for the structural constraints on Genitive marking will the
described definiteness effects be incorporated inta the anaIysis.
3.2.3. SUMMARY
•
The basic paradigm can therefore be captured as follows. There are two
kinds of conditions on the occurrence of the Genitive of Negation, beyond the
initial restriction ta negated sentences. The fust condition can be defined
structurally, in terms of the D-structure position of the NP in a negated
143
• sentence. The second condition is defined semantically, in tenns of the ultimate
interpretation of these sentences. In Part 2, this second restriction will also be
derived by referring to characteristics of the NP itself; its specification for the
feature [defmite].
Before proposing an analysis, 1 will briefly outline Pesetsky's (1982)
treatment, which will demonstrate how these facts have previously been
accounted for within the Government & Binding Framework, as weIl as
introduce sorne additional features of the paradigm that require explanation.
3.3. A 1'REVIous ANALYSIS: 1'ESETSKY (1982)
Pesetsky proposes an analysis of the Genitive of Negation in Russian that
is driven by the observed parallels between this and two other constructions in
Russian: the Genitive Case assigned in numeral phrases and the Dative (DA'l)
Case assigned in distributive po-phrases. These phrases are argued to pattern in
certain central respects with phrases in the Genitive of negation.
Phrases that surface with Genitive under negation and distributive po
phrases that surface with DAT (i) are restricted to D-structure objects, (ii) are
overridden by the requirements of oblique Case-assigning verbs, and (m) cio not
trigger subject a..oreement on the verb. Numeral phrases are somewhat less
straightforward, in that unlliœ phrases in the Genitive of Negation they may or
may not trigger verbal agreement.
Pesetsky claims that these three types of phrases in Russian are base
generated Quantifier Phrases (QPs) rather !han NPs. He deals with the
apparently optional triggering of agreement by numeral phrases by maintaining a
•
•
3.3.1. C-SELEcnON OF NPs VS. QPs
144
•
•
distinction at sorne level of the grammar between agreement and no-agreement
numeral phrases. He cIaims that the latter, like Genitive phrases under negation
and po-phrases, are Q(uantifier) phrases rather than NPs.
(14) Distributive po phrase:[ [PO] [jabloku]]QP Q Ndist apple
(15) No-agreement numeral phrase:[ [sest'] [studentov))QP Q Nsix students
(16) Genitive phrase under negation:[ [el [pisem))QP Q N/elters
[pesetsky 1982:88]
According to Pesetsky, Genitive phrases under negation differ from the
others in that the quantifier is nul!. These phrases can only occur in negated
sentences because they require negation ta license this nuIl quantifer. This is
essentially the only role played by negation in his analysis.
The distinction between agreement and T/()-agreement numeral phrases
lies in their choice of head. If Q is the head, the phrase is a QP; if N is the
head, the phrase is an NP. An agreement numeral phrase is iIlustrated in (17)•
145
•
•
•
(17) Agreement numeral phrase:[ . [sest'] [studentov]]NP Q Nsix studems
[pesetsky 1982:89]
Pesetsky appeals to the difference between NPs and QPs to derive the
syntactic restrictions on and interpretation of phrases in the Genitive of
Negation. The essential components of his analysis are given below.
3.3.2. CASE-ASSIGNMEI\'T
With respect to structural Case assignment, Pesetsky maintains that
Nominative can be assigned to any NP governed by Agr (working within a set
of assumptions where Agr is part of J, the head of IP) and Accusative can be
assigned to any NP governed by a vero, regardless of theta raIe [pesetsky
1982:92].2
Pesetsky daims that QPs are like semences in that they do not require
Case, but like NPs in that they bear theta-rales. The potential problem for
subcategorization associated with a QP occurring in a position in which a vero
subcategorizes for an NP is handled by claiming that C(ategory)-selection is not
checked until LF, at which point there is oniy the trace of the raised QP ii:! the
position subcategorized for by the vero. The trace of a moved QP is an NP
trace, which satisfies C-se1ection.
Depending on where one initiates this interconnected set of daims, one
could in principle derive a different fact each time. Pesetsky's analysis stipulates
(1) !hat these phrases are QPs, (2) !hat the trace of a QP is an NP-trace, and (3)
that C-se1ection is checked al LF. TIùs forces the QP to adjoin to IP at LF, in
order for C-se1ection to be satisfied. TIùs in tum disallows a QP in subject
146
•
•
position at S-structure (where it would surface with Nominative Case) because
its trace would violate the ECP following LF adjunction; the moved QP does
not agree in categorial features with the trace, and therefore cannot
antecedent-govem it. The inability of a QP to be in spec/lP at S-structure
accounts for the lack of subject agreement with phrases in the Genitive of
Negation.
The restriction to D-structure objects is thus accounted for: LF raising
must take place from a properly govemed position (i.e. a position governed by
V, not by Agr), or the trace would violate the ECP.
Pesetsky notes that certain expressions of duration of rime in Russian,
though not theta-marked by the verb, can bear Genitive in negated sentences.
This is illustrated in (18)-(19).
(18) ja spal odnu minutu1 slept one-ACC minute-ACC1sleprfor one minute.
(19) ja ne spal ni odnoj minuty1 Neg slept NOT one-GEN minute-GEN1didn 'r sleepfor one minute.
These facts raise problems for Pesetsky's analysis, which posits the
theta-assigning properties of the verb (specifically the C-selection requirement
checked at LF) as the driving force behind the patterns associated with the
Genitive of Negation. Duration of time expressions are not assigned a theta role,
but can neverthe1ess occur in the Genitive of Negation, in which case they are
subject to the same restrictions as other phrases which he analyzes as QPs.
147
• Pesetsky cannot resort to the C-selection properties of the verb to force
these phrases to raise at LF, sc he proposes that such expressions are
'inherently' C-selected (although not theta-marked) NPs. This forces them to
raise at LF in order 10 leave an NP trace and satisfy C-selection requirements.
He leaves open the question of how inherent C-selection works.3
3.3.3. OPTIONALITY AND INrERPRETAnON OF GENITIVE NPs
•
•
Pesetsky maintains that, in sentences exhibiting a Nominative-Genitive
alternation, as well as in those exhibiting an Accusative-Genitive alternation, the
interpretation of Genitive phrases is more restricted than that of their non
Genitive counterparts. He captures this difference in interpretation by their
configuration at LF; whereas the sentences containing a Genitive NP (e.g. (20»
are necessarily interpreted as quantifier-variable structures, those containing a
Nominative or Accusative NP (e.g. (21» are ambiguous.
(20) ne pojavilos' studentovNeg showed up-neut-sg students-GENNo studell1S showed up. [i.e. Studell1S didn 'r show upl.
(21) studenty ne pojavilis'students-NOM Neg showed up-pl1he studell1S didn 'r show up. or No studenls showed up.
In the LF representation of (20), negation bas scope over an existential
operator.
(22) ...,3x, (S)x 1\ x showed up
148
• This forces an interpretation where the existence of the NP is negated.
The second sentence allows this interpretation, but also allows an interpretation
with the existential operator having wide scope, as illustrated in (23).
(23) 3x, (S)x ....(x showed up)
This is interpreted as positing the existence of the NP, but negating sorne
property attributed to it by the predicate. Following May (1977), Pesets\....y treats
the LF structure shown in (22) as derived by adjunction at LF. He derives the
obligatory quantifier-variable reading of Genitive phrases under negation by the
fuct that Quantifier Raising (QR) of the Genitive phrase is oLligatory, driven by
the C-selection requirements holding at LF.
While this treatment predicts an obligatory indefinite interpretation of an
NP when the Genitive option is used, the fuct that two readings are available if
the Nominative option is taken is more problematic.
Regarding agreement vs. no-agreement numeral phrases in Russian,
Pesetsky claims that if a numeral phrase is a QP, it must raise at LF. It cannot,
therefore, be in subject position at S-structure, and neither surfaces with
Nominative Case nor triggers agreement on the verb. If generated as an NP, it
is not subject to this restriction. It can (in fuct must) he in subject position al S
structure. The appearance or non-appearance of agreement marking on the verb
was introduced as evidence for whether or not a phrase is a QP, and,
accordingly, whether or not it undergoes QR.
This strict correlation between agreement-marking and lack of QR, and
no-agreement marking and obligatory QR, is problematic for an account of the
• 3.3.4. PROBLEMS wrm THE TREATMENT
149
•
•
•
optional reading associated with Nominative NPs in negated sentences. Beth the
reading associated with QR and that associated with no QR are available to these
arguments.
If we loosen the correlation by allowing NPs in subject position (bearing
Nominative Case) te undergo optional QR, as suggested by these data, then the
optional reading associated with Nominative NPs in negated sentences is
accounted for. However, the account of agreement vs. no-agreement numeral
phrases becomes somewhat uninteresting. Essentially, the argument is that a
numeral phrase that is generated as an NP must raise to subject position at S
structure. From this position it can optionally undergo QR, because it can
antecedent govern its trace. A numeral phrase generated as a QP cannot raise to
subject position at S-structure, because it will leave behind an NP trace when it
undergoes obligatory QR. Given that there are no means of deciding whether a
numeral phrase is a QP or an NP other than by whether it triggers agreement on
the verb, and agreement reflects its position in spec/IP, all that this in fuet
amounts te is a claim that agreement and no-agreement numeral pllral.:es are in
different positions at S-structure. This is not related te any difference in
interpretation. The question raised by this argumentation is why certain numeral
phrases are generated as QPs at all.
An additional problem is !hat, while the Nominative option discussed
above is ambiguous between the !wo readings, an NP marked with Accusative in
a negative sentence is not optionally interpreted as a quantifier-variable
structure; in fact. it appears te be unambiguously interpreted as a detinite NP
outside the scope of negation. Pesetsky (1982:66 and 214f, fn. 20) notes this as
a problem, but does not address il. It is difficult te see how bis analysis could
ISO
•
•
account for such a restriction, given that he must allow NPs to undergo opùonal
QR.
Pesetsky's analysis of these constructions is impressively thorough, and
although it relies quite heavily on stipulations (as pointed out by the author
himself) and there are problems with the predictions it makes, it provides an
interesting explanation for many of the restrictions on the Genitive of Negation.
Furthermore, it relates the restrictions on phrases in the Genitive of Negation to
no-agreement numeraI phrases and the DAT-Case of distributive po-phrases- a
correlation which will not be directly addressed in this thesis.4
In Pesetsky's analysis, the role played by sentential negation is relatively
minor; essentially, negation is required te license the null quantifier which
makes Genitive phrases QPs instead of NPs. However, as argued above,
positing a distinction between QPs and NPs runs into difficulties with the
asymmetries found between phrases that otherwise bear Accusative case (objects
of transitive verbs) and phrases that otherwise bear Nominative case (objects of
unaccusative or passive verbs).
Below, 1 propose an analysis which gives significantly greater weight to
the role of sentential negation in aIlowing the Genitive of Negation. 1 will argue
that the Genitive Case found in negated sentences is checked in the specifier of
NegP.
3.4. PART 1: STRUC'roRAL REs'1'RICIlONS ON THE GENITIVE OF NEGATION
3.4.1. INrRODUCIlON
•1 will assume a version of the Uniformity of Thematic Assignment
Hypothesis (UTAH: Baker (1988», such that AGENTS are always generated in a
151
•
•
position structurally higher than the position where PATIENTS/THEMES are
generated.s Agents are generated in spec/DeltaP, PATIENTS/THEMES in t.he
complement of V position.
In this analysis, as in the preceding chapter, agreement will be seen as
the reflex of S-structure Case-checlâng. Since only the NP marked with
Nominative Case triggers agreement, 1 will assume that only Nominative Case
checlâng is an S-structure phenomenon; other Cases in Russian are checked at
LF.6
Unlike in Welsh, S-structure Case-checking is not satisfied by the
creation of an A-chain with a pleonastic anteeedent. It requires movement of the
NP into specifier position. Thus, basic Russian ward arder is SY~, with the
Nominative subject (in specrrP) preceding the verb in T. A further difference
between the Russian and Welsh Case-systems is that in Russian there is no
distinction between the levels of the grammar at which Case-!icensing of
pronominal and non-pronominal arguments takes place.
As in Welsh, speclVP in a [+tense] sentence is not a !icit SpeclHead
configuration for Case-checking of the direct abject, because the head of VP
does not contain a morphologically complete member of the verb-chain.
Accordingly, in a [+tense] sentence, Case is assigned ta the direct abject at S
structure via govemment by the member of the verb chain in Delta.
In the preceding chapter, it was argued that speclNegP can Case-!icense
an NP independently of V-raising. In this chapter, we will extend this claim ta
Russian. This will account for the ability of an NP ta surface with the Genitive
of Negation even when the argument of a [-Case] (i.e. unaccusative or passive)
verb.
152
• 3.4.2. RUSSIAN PHRAsE STRUCI1JRE
•
The basic Russian word order is SVO. Phrases can be scrambled fairly
freely, obscuring the underlying order. However, the scrambled sentences are
typicaIly focussed or topieaJ;zed constructions, marked by obligatory stress.
Phrases are head-initial. The minimal initial hypothesis, in keeping with the
assumptions adopted in this thesis, is that Russian phrase structure consists of
head-initiaI phrases, with specifiers occurring to the left (i.e. preceding the head
and its complements). This is illustrated in (24).
(24)
v
3.4.3. PosmON OF NEGP
Since we base our analysis of the Genitive of Negation on Case-licensing
options in negative contexts, we must establish the base position of NegP in
Russïan. Sentential negation in Russian, represented by the element ne, foIIows
the Nominative NP and immediate1y precedes the first verbal eIement in a
clause. In an anaIysis which incIudes an AgrSP above TP, this might be taken to
suggest that NegP in Russian is generated between AgrP and TP, and
153
•
•
•
Nominative NP raises 10 spec/AgrSP. However. 1 will propose a lower base
position for NegP in Russian, immediately above VP.
The D-structure of a negated sentence with an unaccusative verb in
Russian is given in (25).
(25)
V NP
On the assumption that a higher VP is generated in all sentences whose
verb projects an externaI theta role, the cIaim that NegP selects VP becomes
ambiguous; it couId conceivably be generated immediately above the higher VP
(DeltaP), or it could he generated immediateIy above the lower VP. 1 will
maintain that NegP is always generated immediately above the lower VP. In this
way, its base-position is above the base-position of the V, and intervenes
between this position and Delta, as shown in (26).
154
• (26)
•
•
V NP-imernal
The S-structure position of Neg preceding the verb can be accounted for
in one of two ways. First, the head of NegP in Russian may be a clitic, in which
case it may raise to the head of a higher functional category, i.e. T., at S
structure. Clitic status is invoked to determine the S-s!IUcture position of the
pre-verbal negative marker in French (pollock 1989) and in Italian (Belletti
1991), both analyses positing a NegP be10w TP.
A second possibility for deriving the surface word order makes use of
syntactic affixation; that is, affixation which takes place via head-to-head
movement in the syntax. This idea is most fully worked out in Baker (1988).
Under such an analysis, the negative marker precedes the verb at S-structure
because the verb bas picked up the negative marker as it raises from its base
generated position to T. The verb does no! have the option of •skipping over'
the head of NegP because the interVening negative marker would create a
lSS
•
•
minimality barrier between the V and its trace in VP, resulting in an ECP
violation.
In the second option, the raised verb can antecedent govern its trace over
the NegP by virtue of the Government Transparency Corollary (GTC, Baker
1988). If the raised head governs the matimaJ projection out of which it bas
raised, that maximal projection is no longer a barrier 10 government by that
head.
The fust option requires sorne further stipulations concerning the
def1nition of barrierhood. In principle, the verb should not be able to raise over
the head of NegP and still antecedent govern its trace (since the head of NegP
creates an interVening barrier). Bel1etti (following work by Moritz (1989) and
Rizzi & Roberts (1989» avoids this problem by a further assumption- that the
Agr node into which the verb raises carries the index of the raised negative clitic
and of the raised verb. By defining minimality in terms of chains, Bel1etti can
argue that the head (Agr) is the head ofboth the Neg-chain and the V-chain, so
the potentially problematic trace of the verb can, in essence, be antecedent
governed by the Neg-trace in NegP.
In the absence of independent empiricaJ motivation from Russian for
altering the def1nition of barrier in terms of chains and allowing raising of the
head of NegP independently of V-raising, the relative order of negation and
verb at S-structure is derived as folIows. The head of NegP in Russian is a
morphologically dependent item, like Tense morphology. It is lexically specif1ed
as dominating an empty sIot 10 its right, into which the V must raise.
(27) Neg: [Neg _]V
156
• (28) T: [_11v
•
This head-to-head movement, being an instance of subsùtuùon, resullS in
a Neg head that dominates both a Neg and a V element.7 Following V-raising to
Neg, further verb-raising (i.e. to Delta or to T to support tense morphology)
necessarily carries the negative marker a10ng with the verb. This is consistent
with the fact that no lexical material may intervene between the sentenùal
negation marker and the verb in Russian.
The cIaim that V a1ways combines with Neg is consistent with the fact
that in spite of the fairly free word order found in Russian due to scrambling,
the order Neg+Vis not disrupted. If a verb in a [-tense] sentence had the option
of not raising to Neg, then sentences might be expected where only the lower
VF had been scrambled and the negative marker left behind in VP, but this is
not the case. Scrambling the negated verb necessarily carries the negaùve
marker a10ng with it.
The S-structure of a negated [+tense] transitive sentence is given in
(29).
(29)
T
nNeg T
nNeg V
t NPo
157
•
•
•
In summary, the morphemc order and word order found in Russian
negative sentences are compatible with the treatment of the sentential negative
marker as the head of a functional projection generated between the two tiers in
a Larsonian VP, under the assumption that the negative marker is
morphologicaIIy specified as dominating ai: empty slot to its right, which the
verb moves into.
In the following section, 1 propose an analysis of the assignment of
Genitive Case in negated sentences. This analysis is an extension of the proposaI
that the specifier of NegP is a position in which NP-chains can be Case
Iicensed.
3.4.4. CASE-ASSIGNMENl"UNDER GoVERNMENT IN NEGATED
SENTENCES
In a [+tense] sentence, Accusative Case is assigned under govemment,
by the member of the verb chai'1 in Delta to an NP in the specifier position of
the functional projection it immediately dominates. The specNP in a [+tense]
sentence is not a licit Case position for Spec/Head coindexation because the V is
not morphoIogicaIIy complete until it has combined with T. Hence, in an
affirmative sente.lce, the PATIENT/THEME NP raises 10 specNP at LF and is
Case-Iicensed under govemment.
Now, consider how this system is affected by the presence of NegP
which intervenes between Delta and the specNP. The V raises through
Negation, then into Delta, then on 10 T. The member of the V-chain in Delta is
a trace of the [Neg+V] complex (technicaIIy, the trace of Neg). We have said
that from this position Case can be assigned 10 an NP in the specifier of the
lSS
•
•
•
functional projection it immediately dominales, which in this case is spec/NegP.
This is illustraled by the S-structure given in (30).
(30)
Neg+V-t
4CASE
V-t NPo
However, what we find in such sentences is Genitive Case, not
Accusative Case. TIùs is compatible with IWO possible explanations: First, it is
conceivable that a V which has combined with Neg assigns Genitive instead of
Accusative Case under government, perhaps by virtue of the fact that the
member of the verb-ehain in Delta is not of the category V but of the category
Neg.
Second, it is possible that the NP in speclNegP is Case-!icensed through
Spec/Head coindexation; that while specIVP is not a !icit SpeclHead
confi!:uration in a [+tense) sentence (the verb at that point in the derivation not
meeting the morphological completeness requirement in the definition of a !icit
Spec/Head configuration), Neg carries a [+Case) feature which makes
speclNegP a !icit Case configuration.
159
•
•
Based on data from unaccusative and passive verbs, 1 will argue for the
latter analysis. As 1 will show in the following section, these verbs are not
specified as [+Case]. This motivates NP-raising to speclTP in affirmative
sentences. However, the head of NegP provides the needed [+Case] features for
Case-ehecking of an NP in negated sentences.
3.4.4.1. ON THE R.E:LAnONSHIP BETWEEN GENl'IlVE ANDACCUSATIVE
First, consider the ramifications of the fust proposaI: anaIyzing the
Genitive of Negation as an aItered version of the verb's ability to assign
Accusative Case under govemment. We would therefore expect that only
sentences whose verbs carry the feature specification [+Case] should exhibit the
Genitive of Negation. Such a proposaI is immediately contradicted by the
occurrence of Genitive of Negation on the D-structure objects of passive and
unaccusative verbs- verbs which, according to Burzio's Generalization (BG:
Burzio 1986), neither project an extemaI argument nor assign Accusative Case.
BeIow, 1 will show that Russian conforms to BG, and that an anaIysis which
treats the Genitive of Negatio:l as independent of the Case specifications of the
verb is preferable.
3.4.4.1.1. BURZIO'S GENERALIZATION
The relation between a verb's internaI argument structure and its ability
to assign Accusative Case is described as a kind of mutuaI dependency in BG,
given in (31).8
160
•
•
(31) T<->AWhere:T = Theta marking of an extemal argument,and A = Accusative Case.
[Burzio, 1986: 185]
The effect of BG can be ilIustrated by the behaviour of passive verbs.
The intemal argument (THEME/ PATIENT) of the verb surfaces with Nominative
Case and, in English, appears in subject position. Under standard GB analyses,
it is claimed that this follows from the passive verb's failure to assign
Accusative Case, which forces the argument generated in complement position
to raise to the position where Nominative Case can be assigned.
Given the assumption that theta roles are assigned to theta-positions,
movement from D-structure object position to S-structure position is potentially
a violation of the theta-criterion, given in (32)•
(32) THETA-CRlTERION:A lhela ,ole musl be assigned 10 one and only one argument. andevery argument must be assigned one and on/y one theta raIe.
Such movement is permitted in these cases because the subject position is
not assigned a theta role by passive verbs. The raised NP forms a chain with its
trace in complement of V position; the chain is rendered visible for theta
marking by Nominative Case assignment. The D-structures and S-structures of
the sentences 11ùs slory was believed by the villagers (passive) and These men
arrived (unaccusative) are given below.
(33) DS [eIP
[was [believed [this story) ]by the vilIagers]l' VP
161
(wasl'• (34) SS [This storyi
IP1 _
NOMINATIVE
[believed (ej] ]by the villagers]]VP
1__-a-role
(35) DS (eIP
( (arrived (these men] ]VP
NOMINATIVE
(these meniIP
(36) SS (arrivedk1'1
1 1
( ... tk (ej] ]VP ,--
a-role
•
•
The assimilation of verbs like arrive 10 the c1ass of passive verbs is
motivated in part by the possibilities of ne-eliticization in Italian, which is
possible only if the NP is dominated by V'. It is argued that the fact that ne can
diticize in the first two sentences given below, but not in the third, supports the
daim that the NP in (37) and (38) is in object position (the position dominated
by V').
(37) ne furono arrestati moItiof-them were arrested manyMany ofthem were arrested.
(38) ne arrivano moItiof-them arrived manyMany ofrhem arrived.
(39) ·ne telefonano moItiof-them telephoned manyMany ofrhem telephoned.
162
•
•
Now, BG identifies just those intransitive verbs in Russian which permit
the Cenitive of Negation on their arguments. Problematically for the claim that
Genitive of Negation is dependent on the Case-assigning potential of the verb,
BG also identifies those verbs as lacking Accusative Case-assigning potential.
Thus, in (40), the NP gribov shows a Nominative-Genitive altemation in
negated sentences.
(40) gribov zeles' ne rastetmushrooms-GEN-pl here Neg grow-3sgMushrooms don 'l grow here.
griby zeles' rastutmushrooms-NOM-pl here grow-3plMushrooms grow here.
[Pesetsky 1982:43]
Before concluding that the Genitive of Negation is independent of the
verb's Case-licensing potential, we will consider some apparent violations of
BG, on the reasoning that if BG does not hold in Russian, then it should not be
invoked as an argument against analyzing the Genitive of Negation as a marked
variant of Accusative Case.
3.4.4.1.2. APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF BURZIO'S GENERALIZATION
•
Certain verbs (discussed in Babby (1975) and Pesetsky (1982»,
including verbs of uncontrollable physical sensation, like losnil ('nauseate') or
znobit ('chil1'), are followed by NPs bearing Accusative Case. What is
problematic for BG is that there is apparently no extemal argument in these
constructions. This is illustrated in (41).
163
•
•
•
(41) tosnilo Masunauseated-neut-sg Masu-ACCMasafelr nauseared.
[pesetsky 1982:211 fn.15]
Also included in the class of verbs that apparently contradict BG are
verbs that "denote a physica1 action that can occur spontaneously, without
initiation or intervention of an animate agent" (Babby 1975: note 4). Thus, in
example (42), the instrument must be sorne non-volitional force such as by lhe
wind or by fare.
(42) veter unes lodkuwind-masc-NOM-sg carried away-masc-sg boat-fem-ACCWind carried away rhe boar.
(43) uneslo lodku vetromcarried-away-neut-sg boat-fem-ACC-sg wind-masc-INSTR-sgThe boar was carried away (by wind).
(44) ·uneslo lodku lvanomcarried-away-neut-sg boat-fem-ACC-sg lvan-masc-INST-sgThe boar was carried away by Ivan.
[pesetsky 1982:211-212, fn. 15]
Rather than conclude that BG does not hold in Russian, we will adopt
Pesetsky's (1982) ana1ysis of these verbs as extema1 theta-role assigners. The
theta role is assigned to a quasi-argument, Le. "natura! cause", similarly to the
extema1 theta role assigned 10 the ù-subject in weather constructions in English
(e.g. Il Tained yeslerday). 11ùs is consistent with the restricted interpretation
accorded such sentences; there is no volitional agent implied. Assuming that the
impersonal subject is not specified for these features, it is also consistent with
164
•
•
the 3rd person neuter agreement found on the verb when the overt argument
surfaces with Accusative Case.
Crucially, this restriction is not found with passive verbs which surface
with the Genitive of Negation; the understood agent can be animate and the
action can be volitional.
(45) ni odnogo goroda ne bylo vzjato vragomnot one-GEN city-GEN Neg was-neut-sg taken enemy-INSTNor one city was taken by the enemy.
(Chvany 1975, cited in Pesetsl.:y 1982:42]]
Furthermore, although the Genitive of Negation is permitted on the sole
arguments of passive and unaccusative verbs, Accusative Case on these
arguments is not an option in either affirmative or negative sentences. Thus,
whatever analysis is proposed to account for constructions where the sole overt
argument bears Accusative Case, it is distinct from occurrences of the Genitive
of Negation on arguments of passive verbs.
The apparent exceptions to BG can be put aside, and we will assume that
in Russian, as in other languages, passive and unaccusative verbs do not assign
Case to their internal arguments, and the Genitive of Negation on arguments of
these verbs cannot be analyzed as an altered version of the verb's Accusative
Case-assigning ability. The alternative proposaI, which treats the Genitive of
Negation as independent of the Case assigning potential of the verb, is
deve10ped be1ow.
165
• As argued earlier, any member of a chain can Case-license an element in
its specifier if it is specified [+Case]. 1 will propose that the head of NegP is
inherently specified as [+Case], and that Genitive Case can be checked in its
specifier. In this way, the J)-structure object of an unaccusative or passive verb
can raise te spec/NegP for Case-checking. This is shown in (46).
•
(46) TP
NP-t1 ! j~'---'--'I
1 V-t NP-t,i, ,L-- .,
Below, 1 will show how this proposaI accounts for restrictions on the
Genitive of Negation.
3.4.5. STRUCl1JRAL CONSI'RAINTS ON GENnIVE OF NEGATION
3.4.5.1. REsnucnON 1'0 NON-AGENllVE NPs
•Consider first a negated transitive sentence. The NP that would surface
with Accusative Case in the affirmative equivalent can surface with Genitive
Case, but the NP that would otherwise surface with Nominative Case cannot.
166
• Given that NegP is generated below the D-structure position of the
agentive NP, this constraint is expected. The agent is generated in spec/DeltaP,
higher than the base position of NegP. As such, its only potential Case position
is speclTP, where it surfaces with Nominative Case. Genitive Case on such an
argument would require lowering to spec/NegP, leaving an antecedentless trace
in spec/DeltaP in violation of the ECP. Only NPs generated below NegP can be
Case-licensed in speclNegP. The situation is illustrated in (47).
•
(47)
i1
1: NP-agentl ~1 .:
Vot
3.4.5.2. COMPLEMEN'IS OF OBUQUE CASE-ASSIGNING VERBS
•
A class of Russian verbs, termed Oblique Case-Assigning Verbs by
Babby (1980), do not allow the Genitive of Negation on their complements. To
address these data, we will initially refer to a distinction that bas been made in
Russian grammar between structural Case and semanric case.
This distinction is motivated in Russian primarily by constraints on
passivization. Passivization genera1ly results in the D-structure object of the
167
•
•
•
verb raising te subject position, where it surfaces with Nominative case. There
is a class of verbs in Russian which do not allow this construction; instead, they
require an existential construction with a null pleonastic subject, and the Case of
the object remains unchanged. An example is the transitive verb vredil ('harm').
In a non-passivized sentence, the object of vredil surfaces with Dative case. If
the sentence is negated, this NP does not have the Genitive Case option. This is
illustrated in (48)-(50).
(48) on vredilljudjamhe-NOM harmed people-DATHe hanned people.
(49) on ne vredilljudjamhe-NOM Neg harmed people-DATHe didn '( hann people.
(50) *on ne vredilljudejhe-NOM Neg harmed people-GEN
[Neidle 1988:37]
1 will fust investigate the possibility that these verbs assign inherent Case
te their complements at D-structure, and then propose an analysis which invokes
a null preposition in these constructions.
The inability of these arguments te raise te Nominative position under
passivization could in principle be derived by appealing te a disti.'1et Case
marking operation which takes place at D-strueture: inherent Case-marking. If
arguments of these verbs are assigned Case at D-structure, raising te a position
at S-structure where Nominative is assigned would result in an NP chain with
168
two Cases, creating a Case-eonflict which has been argued to be a violation of
the Case-Filter.
Since this sarne class of verbs does not pennit the Genitive of Negation
on their complements, this analysis would be consistent with the claim that the
Genitive of Negation, like Nominative, is a structural Case, and cannot be
assigned ta an NP that already bears inherently assigned Case.9 Below, 1 will
argue lhat, based on the behaviour of prepositional objects, the objects of sa
called oblique Case-assigning verbs can be analyzed as PPs headed by null
prepositions. In this way, parallels between the behaviour of these phrases with
respect to the Genitive of Negation and passivization can be captured without
appeaJing to two distinct Cas .-mechanisms.
According to Babby (1980), objects ~f prepositions are also assigned
semantic Case. Support for the claim that prepositions assign semantic Case
comes from prepositions that express motion; whereas prepositions that express
motion roward require Accusative case, prepositions that express motion away
from generaJIy requite Genitive Case. Il has been suggested (Neidle 1988:12)
that prepositions assign a partially specified feature bundle, and that the second
feature value is detennined by the directionality of motion.
For our analysis, accounting for the absence of the Genitive of Negatior:
on prepositional complements does not require reference ta a structurallsemantic
Case distinction. The lack of the Genitive of Negation is expected because the
complement of P is Case-licensed by the preposition itself, within pp.Jo In this
way, we do not rnd the Genitive of Negation on the object of a preposition for
the sarne reason that we do not find the Case associated with the verb on the
•
•3.4.5.3. PREPosmONAL COl\fPI..EME!'<"I'S
169
• object of a preposition in other languages: the P determines the lowest possible
Case-eonfiguration for its complement, and Case is checked only once for a
given chain. This is illustrated in the LF structure given in (51).
NP
/i'Li P1,, ,, ,, ;
NPo-t i :_._---_.---.__••,1
toi
NPo·GEN
Lt_i
NPo-t
NPs·NOM
L [Neg+V+n·j
(51)
•These fucts suggest that there may be a structural explanation for the lack
of Genitive of Negation on the arguments of oblique Case-assigning verbs as
weIl. We can extend this account to oblique Case assigning verbs by analyzing
their complements as PPs, with a null prepositionaI head which is responsible
for Case-assignment (Libert 1992).
•(52) on
he-NOMnevrediINegharmed
Ijudjam[0 [people-DAT]]pp
170
•
•
The prepositional ("oblique") object is Case-licensed by the null
preposition P. Like objects of lexically reaIized prepositions, slJch arguments do
not undergoing raising to speclTP under passivization of the verb; passive
morphology on the verb does not affect the ability of these arguments to be
Case-licensed by P.
Support for this analysis of prepositional objects and oblique-Case
assigned objects cornes from double-object constructions. The Dative object in a
double object constructions does not surface with Nominative Case in passives;
nor can it surface with the Genitive of Negation. On the assumption that double
object constructions are structurally asymmetrical (Larsen (1987», the Dative
can be seen as generated within a pp headed by a null preposition (Baker 1988),
and these three paradigms where Genitive of Negation is not found have a
common explanation. The structure of a negated double object construction in
Russian is given in (53).
•
(53)
spec
TP
171
• 3.4.5A. A CLAUSAL CONSTRAINT
•
•
The possibility of the Genitive of Negation being triggered in a 10wer
clause than the clause containing sentential negation, as described in Pesetsky
(1982), is constrained by the following conditions: Genitive cannot appear on an
NP object in the lower clause "unless the clause containing the NP and aIl
intervening clauses are infinitives" (pesetsky 1982:149). Thus, in (54a), neither
the subject nor the object of the lower tensed clause can occur in the Genitive of
Negation. However, in (54b), the Genitive of Negaêcn is permitted on the
object of the [-fmite] V.
(54a) *ja ne skazal [cto [ty pises stixov]1 Neg said that you write [indic] verses-masc-GEN-pl1didn'r say rhatyou wrire verses•
(54b) ja ne xocu [pisat' stixov]1 Neg want write [-finite] verses-masc-GEN-pl1don 'r wanr ro wrire verses.
[pesetsky 1982:149]
Under our account it is not surprising that the Genitive of Negation
would be blocked in the tensed embedded contexts. What does require an
explanation is the claim that the Genitive of Negation con appear in lower
[-finite] clauses.
1 argue that the descriptive generalization given by Pesetsky is somewhat
misieading, as it suggests a far greater flexibility !han is found. 1 will maintain
that these cases repre:;ent a small class of Russian verbs that can take a VP
complement. The sentences cited by Pesetsky as evidence that the Genitive of
172
• Negation can be assigned to an NP in a lower clause will be analyzed as
monociausaI.
3.4.5.5. GENI'I1VE OF NEGATION IN AN E!lmEDDED (-FINITE)CLAUSE?
Only a small class of veros in Russian allow a (-finite) vero to follow
them. The class of veros which allow a (-finite) complement express modai-like
properties, such as desire, abiliry, or inrenr. 1 will propose that these sentences
are inherently monoclausaI, as illustrated by the D-structure given in (55).11
(55)
V NPo
1 1ja ne xocu pisat' stixov
The higher V raises through Negation and Delta 10 T, and the subject
raises 10 spectrP for Nominative Case-checking at S-structure. As there are no
barriers between the speclNegP and the direct object, Genitive Case can be
checked in speclNegP at LF. The derived structure is given in (56).
173
• (56) TP
•
Il
(Neg+V+TI
ja ne xocu
stixov
v t-o1
1
pisat'
These cases can be distinguished from object-control verbs like
'persuade', illustrated in (57), which take a regular complement. Negating these
verbs is incompatible with the Genitive of Negation on the lower object, even
though the lower verb is [-finite].
(57) *ja ne ugovorila Natasha citat' knigI-NOM Neg persuaded Natasha read-INF books-GEN1 didn't persuade Natasha to read books.
[Neidle 1988:157]
The Genitive of Negation on the lower object is ooly pennitted if
negation intervenes between the two verbs.
174
•
•
(58) ja ugovorila Natasha ne citat' knigI-NOM persuaded Natasha Neg read books-GEN1persuaded Nalasha not to read books.
This is as expected. In cases like persuade, the lower constituent is a TP,
with an empty subject controlled by the matrix object NP, Nalasha. For the
lower object to be Case-licensed in speclNegP in the higher clause it would have
te A-move over the embedded subject. Accordingly, the object of the lower
verb appears only with Accusative Case. If, as in (58), NegP is generated in the
lower clause, then the Genitive of Negation is acceptable. Nothing blocks
movement from the base position of the direct object to speclNegP.
In impersonal constructions as weil, negation can intervene between the
[+finite] and [-finite] verbs, negating the infmitival.
(59) stalo ne suscestvovat' takix ljudejstarted-3-neut-sg Neg exist-inf such-GEN people-GENThere staned not tO exist such people.
[Neidle 1988:82]
Again, the Genitive of Negation is acceptable on the lower object in
these cases, as expected under our analysis. Tne Genitive of Negation is checked
in speclNegP at LF, following V-raising into Neg (which we claim te be
obligatery).
It is interesting in this regard that the sentence given in (60), with a
subject control verb trJ. is ungrammatica1 with the Genitive of Negation.
(60) takie 1judi staralis' ne prixoclit'such-NOM peop1e-NOM tried Neg come-infSuch people tried not tO come.
17S
• (61) ·staralos' ne prixodit' takix Ijudejtried-3-neut-sg Neg come-inf such-GEN people-GEN.
The NP takix ljudej ('such people') is agentive, generated in
spec/De1taP, and cannot lower te spec/NegP te be Case-licensed.
In sum, we have seen that the clausaI restriction on the Genitive of
Negation is not related te whether or not a lower clause is [-finite]. Rather, the
possibility is conditioned by the ability of an NP te raise te spec/NegP at LF for
Case-checking.12
3.4.6. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
A major syntactic difference between sentential and what has been
termed constituent negation assumed here is that only the former generates a
NegP. Constituent negation is not the head of a phrase NegP, but a lexical item
adjoined te a phrase. By positing such a close relationship between the presence
of a NegP and the possibility of the Genitive of Negation, this analysis predicts
that the Genitive of Negation should not be available under constituent negation.
This is uphe1d by the data. The incompatibility of the Genitive of Negation with
constituent negation has been noted by many researchers.13
The distinction between sententiaI and constituent negation may not be
evident from surface word order aIone. Rence, pragmaticaIIy, one can choose te
negate onIy the vero in a sentence, rather than the clause, by contrastive1y
stressing the vero. This can be seen in the English sentence, 1 dü!n't SEE the
•3.4.6.1. SENTENIlAL NEGATION VS. CONS11TUENT NEGATION
1
film.
176
•
•
Sentences of this type can be distinguished from senlcntial negation in
that they allow violations of the downward entailment requirement associated
with sentential negation. In this way, while the truth of the sentence 1 didn't ear
a green vegetable logically entails the truth of the sentence 1 didn 't ear a
zucchini, il is permissible to state: 1 didn't ear a GREEN VEGEl'ABLE, 1 are a
ZUCCHINI.
These cases are therefore instances of constituent negation, not senlential
negation, and our analysis predicls that they should not permit the Genitive of
Negation. This prediction is substantiated, and the constraint is observed even if
the word order is identical to the unstressed (sentential negation) version, where
Genitive is permitted. The appearance of the Genitive of Negation forces a
reading where negation has sentential scope.
(62) on ne prosmatrivaet sls'ju a citaethe-NOM Neg looks over article-ACC (*GEN] but readsHe does not look over the article. but reads it.
[Neidle 1988:40]
Neidle supports this distinction between sentential and constituent
negation and the possibility of the Genitive of Negation with reference ta the
Academy of Sciences of the USSR Grammar (1980, VoI.2:417) where it is
stated that an Accusative object is required when one verb is negated in contrast
to another (Neidle 1988:40). This supports the dependency of the Genitive of
Negation on the functional projection NegP.
In sentences exhibiting the Ct'.nitive of Negation, these phrases most
naturally occur post-verbally, even if they ::l"~ the negated equivalents of•3.4.6.2. WORD ORDF.& DIFFERENCES
177
•
•
•
sentences where the same argument would occur in S-initial position, bearing
Nominative case. 14 Thus, the exarnples given below show the unmarked order
for a phrase bearing Nominative Case vs. a phrase bearing Genitive Case.
(63) ni odna devuska ne prislanot one-NOM girl-NOM Neg came-fem-sgNOl one girl came.
(64) ne prislo ni odnoj devuskiNeg came-3rs-neut.sg. not one-GEN girl-GENNOl one girl came.
[Neidle 1988:77]
This is exactly what is expected under this analysis. We have maintained
that Nominative Case is checked in speclTP at S-structure (triggering
agreement). Since we have maintained that Genitive Case reflects LF Case
licensing in spec/NegP, a position lower than the S-structure position of the
verb in T, the Genitive NP cao only be S-initial if preposed by scrambling,
creating a marked structure which requires sorne kind of emphatic Stress. 15 As
shown in (65), the Extended Projection Principle is satisfied by a null pleonastic
subject NP.
178
•
•
(65)
t NP2
LF·raising
3.4.6.3. LACK OF AGREEMENT wrm GENl'IlVE PHRAsEs
•
In the intransitive sentences we have discussed, arguments of
unaccusative and passive verbs may surface with either Nominative Case or
Genitive Case. Subject agreement is analyzed as the reflex of Case-licensing in
specrrP. Given that the Genitive of Negation is checked in speclNegP, Genitive
NPs should not trigger agreement on the vero, even if they are superficially in
"subject" position, preceding the vero. These facts are borne out; Genitive NPs,
even when they are the sole NP in an intransitive S and preceding a tensed vero,
do not trigger agreement on the vero. This is shown in (67).
179
•
•
(66) griby zdes' rastutmushroom-NOM-PL here grow-3PLMushrooms grow here.
(67) gribov zdes' ne rastetmushroom-GEN-PL here Neg grow-3SGMushrooms don'( grow here.
[Pesetsky 1982:43)
3.4.7. CONCLUSIONTO PART 1
This analysis rests on the following c1aims about the syntax of Russian.
First, l have proposed that sentential negation in Russian (un1ike constituent
negation) generates a NegP. l have proposed that Case-checking of the Genitive
of Negation takes place in spec/NegP, which is made possible by the [+Case)
feature of the head of NegP. This accounts for the fact that the Genitive of
Negation is not possible on complements of prepositions or so-called oblique
Case assigning verbs. Finally, we have accounted for the appearance of the
Genitive of Negation on a 10wer verb when a higher verb is negated, by
proposing that the higher verbs in these constructions take VP complements.
With these daims, we have developed an analysis that accounts for the
facts Iisted in (68) without requiring additional stipulations:
•
(68) (a) The Genitive Case found on an NP otherwise assigned Accusativein negated transitive sentences;
180
• (b) The Genitive Case found on an NP otherwise assignedNominative in (certain) negated intransitive sentences;
(c) The ungrammaticality of the Genitive of Negation on an NPotherwise assigned Nominative Case in a transitive sentence;
(d) The lack of subject agreement on the verb when an NP otherwiseassigned Nominative Case surfaces with the Genitive ofNegation;
(e) The unmarked position of an NP with the Genitive of Negation(following the verb);
•(f) The ungrammaticality of the Genitive of Negation on
complements of prepositions;
(g) The ungrammaticality of the Genitive of Negation oncomplements of oblique-Case assigning verbs;
(h) The ungrammaticality of the Genitive of Negation on NPs inlower [+finite] clauses when the higher clause is negated;
(i) The acceptability of Genitive Case on the direct object of certainlower [-finite] verbs when the higher verb is negated.
In the following section, 1 will propose an analysis for the apparent
definiteness effects exhibited by these constructions. The initial analysis will be
driven by the faets described by Neidle (1988), which are supported by my
informant work. 1 will, however, also address Pesetsky's findings.
181
• 3.5. PART 2: DEFThTIENESS EFFEcrs ASSOCIATED wrru TIIE GEI\'ITIVE OF
NECATION
3.5.1. INI'RODUcnON
Phrases that can appear with Genitive Case in negated sentences also
have the option of surfacing with Accusative Case or Nominative Case.
depending on the verb. However, these variations have repercussions on the
interpretation of the sentences; repercussions which differ dependir.g on whether
it is an otherwise Accusative-marked NP or an otherwise Nominative-marked
NP that surfaces with Genitive Case.
We have aiready proposed an account for how the D-structure objects of
transitive and intransitive verbs pattern together in their ability to bear the
Genitive of Negation. The greatest challenge to the (in)definitencss aspect of the
analysis of the Genitive of Negation is to account for the fact that there is an
asymmetry between these arguments when it comes to interpretation. Whereas
with the D-structure objects of intransitive verbs the non-Genitive option
(Nominative) leads to an interpretation that is ambiguous with respect to
definiteness, with the D-structure objects of transitive verbs the non-Genitive
option (Accusative) forces the definite reading. We will address these facts
bel(\w.
3.5.2. DEALING \\TIll THE CONCEPT OF (IN)DEFINITENESS
3.5.2.1. ACAVEAT
A caveat regarding the notion of (in)definiteness is appropriate here. In
much of the work on the Genitive of Negation in Russian, the NPs that surface
with this Case are described as indefinite NPs, or as NPs which can be
182
• interpreted as within the scope of negation (henee indefinite). In fact, the
tendency to use the Genitive of Negation is sensitive to severa! factors, and is
perhaps best described as a series of oppositions, with one extreme tending to
use the Genitive, and the other tending not to use it. The oppositions described
by Timberlake (1975), are summarized in (69).
(69) Genitive of Negation~COMMON->MORECOMMON
proper :.ounsconcretecountanimatesingulardefinitetepicalizedmodified
- > common nouns->abstract->mass- > inanimate->plural- > indefinite->neutra!- > unmodified
These features, Timberlake argues, can be reduced te the general
property of individuation.
Furthermore, the use of Accusative under negation is described as
gaining in frequency. The diachronic progression seems te be the following: the
Genitive of Negation used to be obligatory on the direct object NP in negative
sentences. Later, the use of Accusative Case becarne an option, but an option
that carried with it a restrictive ([+definite]) interpretation, a restriction from
which the use of Genitive was free. Neidle (1988) discusses this effect in the
dialect she describes.
183
•
•
•
To the extent that automaùc Geniùve marking of an object(regardless of scope relaùons) rep.esents an older grammaùcalsystem [sùll retained in Polish]... , an Accusaùve object wouldprovide more informaùon about scope relaùons (namely, that theobject is outside the scope of negaùon) than a Geniùve object(which may bear Geniùve for purposes of scope marking, or a~
an automaùc consequence of being contained in a negaùvephrase).
[Neidle 1988:37].
However, the data reported in Pesetsky (1982) suggest that their roles
are becoming reversed, with GEN now restricted to the indefinite, or
interpretation within the scope of Neg, and ACC relaùvely freely used without
any commitment to particular scope relaùons. Contemporary Russian appears to
be in transition between an initial state of affairs like that in present day Polish,
where the Genitive of Negation surfaces on any NP in the appropriate structural
configuration, regardless of its semantic features, and that in present-day Czech,
which has practically 10st the construction altogether. Thus, as noted in a study
by Ward (1959:213-214), the use of Accusative in Russian negated sentences
increased from 21.7% in 1918-23 to 38.3% in 1959.
The analysis presented here does not attempt to address the semantic,
pragmatic, and stylistic factors that are clearly invoived in delimiting the class
of NPs which (within the appropriate syntactic configuraùons) surface with the
Genitive of Negation. What is important here is that certain arguments in
Russian are appropriate candidates for the Genitive of Negation and others are
not; given this basic division, the task is ta capture the role pIayed by sentential
negation and the syntactic constraints on the assignment of Genitive of
Negation. As the construction evoives, there appear ta be new semantic
184
• restrictions on which NPs surface with this Case, but the syntactic restrictions
have not changed.
3.5.2.2. Do WE HAVE A PARADIGM?
While the pattern discussed (and anaIyzed) by Pesetsky (1982) can be
illustrated as a uni-directionaI implicature, with Genitive imp1ying [-definite]
and the non-Genitive option being arnbiguous, the data discussed in NeidIe
(1988) and supported by my own informant work indicate that the use of
Genitive permits the NP to be interpreted as either [+definite] or [-definite],
while the Accusative option is necessari1y interpreted as [+definite]. This is
ilIustrated in (70).
•(70) Genitive
Accusative-> [-definite] or [+definite]-> [+definitc]
•
Strong support for Neid1e's c1aim that the Genitive option is not
restricted to indefinite NPs comes from the acceptability of Genitive Case on
pronouns, demonstrative NPs, and proper narnes, aIl of which are incompatible
with any traditionaI interpretations of the concept indefinite.
(71) on ne vidaI etoj stranyhe-NOM Neg saw this-GEN country-GENHe did Mt see this country.
[NeidIe 1988:76)
(72) ja ne vidaI masi1 Neg saw Masa-GEN1didn't see Masa.
[Neid1e 1988:47)
185
• In the analysis 1 will propose here, 1 will assume that NPs are lexically
marked with a value for the feature [definite]. The actual name that we give this
feature is not crucial te the analysis; 1 will refer to it as [definite] for case of
exposition and because it appears to approximate the common property of the
NPs in question. In what follows, 1 will argue that the distinction between
definite and indefinite N?s drives the pattern of interpretation and Case
assignment exhibited in negated sentences in Russian.
3.5.3. DEFINlTENESS AND THE ACCUSA11VE-GENrnVE ALTERNATION
Given that it will be the specification for definiteness carried by the NP
itself that will limit the Case-marking options of NPs in negated sentences,
rather than the Case-marking that limits interpretation, the paradigm can be
clarified by reversing the direction of entailment of Neidle's observations. This
results in the pattern given in (73).
(73) [+definite][-definite]
- > Accusative or Genitive-> Genitive
•
According to the analysis developeci up to this point, in an affirmative
[+tense] sentence Accusative Case is assig;led to a VSO direct object in
spec/VP, under government by the trace of the verb-chain in Delta. We have
alse maintained that the presence of the functional category NegP immediately
dominated by Delta introduces an additional Case-checking position. We have
maintained further that where Case-checking in a SpeclHead configuration is an
option, Case-licensing under government, a marked option, is not triggered.
Without further refinement, this predicts that the Genitive of Negation would be
obligatory on the direct object in a negated sentence. Indeed, this captures the
186
• situation historically in Russian, where any NP that met the structural
requirements for the Genitive of Negation was obligatorily Genitive. In
contemporary Russian, however, we see that Accusative Case on the direct
object is an option.
Given that the position that would otherwise be Case-licensed under
govemment in an affirmative sentence, the specifier of the functionaI projection
immediately dominated by Delta, is a licit SpeclHead configuration for Case
licensing in a negated sentence (due to the [+Case] feature of the negative
head), the Accusative marking on NPs in negated sentences in Russian must
have a source other than govemment by the verb. 1 will argue that there is an
additionaI SpeclHead configuration where Accusative Case can be checked.
Such an additional Case position has been proposed in much of the recent
literature on Case-licensing of direct objects (Chomsky (1989), Mahajan (1990),
Johnson (1990), Noonan (1992».
1 will propose that this projection, which 1 will refer to as the functional
projection (PP), is generated below Neg; the position otherwise taken by VP.16
The D-structure position of FP in a negated [+tense] transitive sentence is given
in (74).l7
187
At S-structure, the verb raises through the head of FP, NegP, and
DeltaP, to T. There <>re two potential Case-positions for the direct object at LF:
speclFP and speclNegP. The properties of FP are considered in the following
section.
•
•
(74)
spee
NOM eheeked(S-structure)
spee
Neg
spee
:,
GEN eheekedILF)
ACC eheekcdILF) v NP
3.5.4. Tm: PROPERTlES OF FP
3.5.4.1. TBESPECIFlEKOFFP: LnwTEDTO [+DEFINITE] NPs
•
1 will maintain that Case-checking in spec/FP is restricted to [+definite]
NPS.IB As this is the only means for Accusative Case-checking in negated
sentences in Russian, the corresponding interpretations of these sentences are as
expected. Accusative NPs that are D-strueture objects of negated transitive verbs
must be [+definite]; if they were [-definite] they would not have the option of
188
•
•
•
being Case-checked in this position. Further, since no such restrictions in terms
of definiteness are attributed to speclNegP, the fact that a phrase in the Genitive
of Negation is not disarnbiguated with respect to defmiteness is also expected.
This proposai accounts quite naturally for the observed asymmetrj
between the internaI arguments of intransitive and transitive verbs with respect
to interpretation; the observation that only an Accusative marked internaI
argument in a negated sentence is unambiguously interpreted as [+definite]. In
Pesetsky's analysis, the fact that the non-Genitive option is interpreted
differently depending on whether it is marked Accusative or Nominative is
problematic.
This also provides an account for an additionaI asymmetry between D
structure objects of transitive and intransitive verbs, noted by both Pesetsky
(1982:214-215, fn. 20) and Neidle (1988:77). D-structure objects of transitive
verbs, which may be Case-checked either at FP (Accusative) or NegP
(Genitive), appear to require the Genitive of Negation option when preceded by
the negative intensifying particle ni ('no', 'not any').
(75) ??ja ne poluca1 nikakie pis'maI-NDM Neg received no-ACC Ietters-ACC1didn 'c receive arry lerrers.
[Neidle 1988:77]
This can be contrasted with D-structure objects of intransitive verbs,
which allow Case-checking at NegP (Genitive) or TP (Nominative). These
arguments maintain optionality of Case-checking even when preceded by the
negative particle.
189
•
•
•
(76) ni odna devuska ne prislanot one girl-NOM Neg came-fem-sgNot one girl came.
[Neidle 1988:77]
This asymmetry is predicted by the anaIysis we have developed here.
The addition of the negative partic1e ni preceding the NP renders it [-definite].
As such, the option of Case-checking in the spec/FP option (Accusative) is ruled
out for these NPs, which forces Case-checking in spec/NegP (Genitive) instead.
The internaI arguments of intransitive verbs, on the other hand, can be Case
licensed in specITP (Nominative) even if [-definite).
3.5.4.2. THE HEAD OF FP: ACCOUNTING FOR THE LACK OF FPWITH UNACCUSAllVE AND PASSIVE VERBS.
The fust fact to note about the FP option is that, unlike the Genitive of
Negation, it is unavailable for the arguments of passive and unaccusative verbs,
which according1y show only a Nominative-Genitive aIternation in negative
sentences. This is illustrated in (77)-(78).
(77) *ne suscestvuet takuju stranuNeg exists-3rd sg such-ACC country-ACCThere does not exist such a country.
(78) ne suscestvuet takoj stranyNeg exists-3sg such-GEN country-GENThere does not exist such a country.
[NeidIe 1988:76]
We have suggested that only an element with the feature [+Case) can
license an NP in its specifier. Above, we argued that the head of NegP is
[+Case), based in part on its ability 10 license an NP in its specifier even in
190
• passive sentences, and therefore cannot rely on inheriting this feature from the
verb. The Jack of Case-licensing in ~pec/FP in sentences with unaccusative or
passive verbs suggests that the head of FP is not specified for the feature [Case].
As such, it is entirely dependent on inheriting this feature from a lexical item
that raises into it. 19 In an affinnative sentence with an unaccusative or passive
verb, this forces the internai argument to raise to specfTP to be licensed with
Nominative Case.
3.5.5. A l'ROBLEM: OBUGATORY GENlTIVE OF NEGATION
Russian existential sentences take Nominative Case on their arguments.
Howevcr, negated e:tistentiaIs which use the form byt' ('be') do not show a
NominativelGenitive alternation. Instead, the sole argument of the negated
existentiaI verb is necessarily Genitive. The negative form of existential byt' is
net (present), ne bylo (past), and ne budet (future).
(79) knigi est'books-NOM (there) are1here are books.
(80) net knigNeg (there) are books-GEN1here are not books.
DisaIlowing the Nominative option in these sentences is mOre complex
than disaIlowing the Accusative option for unaccusative and passive verbs or for
NPs preceded by the negative particle ni. Below, we will explore means of
deriving the obligatoriness of the Genitive of Negation on these existential
sentences.
191
•
•
•
It is weIl documented across human languages that existential sentences
with expletive elements in the subject position do not permit a [+definite]
argument in object position.
(81) There ensued a/*lhe riO( on Moss. Ave.
This is Safir's (1982) 'definiteness effect', and Milsark's (1974)
'quantification restriction'. As noted by Reuland and ter Meulen (1989:2ff),
constructions of this type are found in Chinese, Chamorro, Dutch, Finnish,
French, German, Hungarian, Italian, and Spanish.
Given the posited relationship between Case-checking in spec/FP and the
feature [+definite], it is tempting to suggest that since the objects are
necessarily indefinite, these sentences require Genitive as opposed to
Accusative, which is restricted to definite NPs. However, two immediate
problems arise; the first is that it is not Accusative but Nominative that we have
to rule out, and the second is that any such argument would predict that ail
existential verbs in Russian should show this behaviour, which is not the case.
Other existential sentences (e.g. those using the verb form 10 exisl) differ from
bYl' in allowing the expected Nominative-Genitive altemation. This suggests
that sorne form of lexical specification is at the root of the observed constraint.20
One possibility is that the negated existential byl' is lexically specified as
a morphologically negative verb, which has the special property of checking
Genitive Case in its specifier. This alone will not produce the correct results, as
r-..ising 10 specfTP is still permitted. Accordingly, we must analyze these verbs
as inherent Genitive Case-assigners. The D-structure object of byl' cannot raise
10 specfTP and surface with Nominative, because it already bears Case.
192
• While this account amounts to an ad hoc solution, it is conceivable that a
basic existential use of the verb co be should become a lexicalized negative verb;
many of the world's languages have a negative form which has evolved from the
negated form of the verb co be. Moreover, in languages where negation is
usually an independent morpheme, it is common to find a restricted subset of
verbs subject to morphological negation, and :he most frequent is undoubtedly
be.21 Accordingly, these forms may carry special features including features
relating to Case-assignment.
INDEFINITE NPs AS VARJABLES, NEGATION AS AN OPERATOR•
(82) [nist] =Neg-be[laysa] =Neg-be[eino] =Neg-be
3.5.6.
PersianArabicModern Hebrew
[payne 1985:228]
3.5.6.1. INTRODUcnON
•
In the following section, 1 present an analysis which is driven by the data
presented by Pesetsky, wherein the Genitive of Negation unambiguously denotes
indefiniteness. This analysis is presented with certain reservations. On a
somewhat meta-theoretic nO\e, the fact that Genitive Case was historically
obligatory for alI NP D-structure objects in negated sentences, and Accusative
or Nominative Case is a more recent option, suggests that if either option should
have associated restrictions on its availability it is the Accusative or Nominative
option.
Further, 1 was unable to duplicate these facts among my own informants,
for whom the Genitive of Negation does not entai! an indefinite interpretation.
193
Nevertheless. 1 present the analysis of this paradigm as an alternativ.: to the
preceding analysis. As Russian evolves. the use of the Ge.1itive mav he
becoming increasingly marked (as noted by Timberlake (1975) and others):
perhaps what follows can serve to suggest an approach to the language of
younger speakers who use the Genitive of Negation in a more restricted way.
In what follows. it is assumed that Genitive Case on an NP in a negated
sentence results in an unambiguously [-detinite] rcading. As above. the basic
daim on which the analysis rests is that Genitive is Case-checked in spec/NegP.
The additional daim will be that only [-definite] NPs have this option. We will
derive this by an additional restriction on Case-licensing in spcc/NegP in this
dialect.
In her (1982) dissertation, Heim proposes that ail NPs, induding
indefinite NPs, are assigned a referenrial index. This index is dcscribed as a
numerical subscript, unrelated to traditional notions of reference (Heim
1982: 132). Indefinite NPs are treated as variables, elements that require a c·
commanding operator. An obligatory rule termed Quantifier indexing operatcs
to copy the referential index of every indefinite NP as a selection index onto the
lowest c-commanding operator. Selection indices are also numerical subscripts,
differing only in that they appear on Quantifiers rather than NPs.
Selection indices are assigned in (Wo ways. First, there is the Quantifier
indexing operation. Second, when a Q is moved out of an NP it takes the
referential index of !hat NP with it as a selection index.
•
•
•
3.5.6.2. HEIM (1982): INDEFlNITE NPs AS VARIABLE.."
194
•
•
QUANTIFIER INDEXlNG: Copy the referential index of every indefinite NPas a selection index onto the lowest c-commanding quantifier.[Heim 1982: 146]
Quantifier indexing occurs at the level of the grammar where the
interpretive component operates. Crucially, only indefinite NPs copy their
indices onto an operator.
In what follows, 1 will suggest that quantifier indexing is a necessary
(though not sufficient) condition for LF Case-checking in spec/NegP in this
dialect. It is the requirements of this condition that rule out the Genitive of
Negation on definite NPs, and force an indefinite reading of NPs in the Genitive
of Negation.
Under the assumption that the negative operator adjoins to TP at LF, C
commanding al! NPs in its binding domain (TF), the referential index of any
indefinite NP in a negated clause will be copied as a selection index onto the
negative operator. However, index-copying is not a sufficienr condition for the
Genitive of Negation. As we have seen in this chapter, not all indefinite NPs
can surface with Genitive of Negation. This fcllows from the fact that Case
checking is subject to stricter structural constraints than co-indexation; an NP
bearing the Genitive of Negation must raise to speclNegP at LF.
To clarify the distinction between the index-copying mechanism and the
ability to be Case-checked in speclNegP, consider sentences where the Genitive
of Negation is ruIed out for other reasons. Thus, the object of a preposition
(Case-checked in speclPP) in a negated sentence can be interpreted as an
indefinite NP in the scope of negation, even though it cannot surface with the
Genitive of Negation.
195
•
•
Clearly, Quantifier indexing is not thc problematic factor for the
Genitive of Negation within PPs; it is the more restrictive constraints on Case
checking that are not met. This leads us to the following conclusion. The
Genitive of Negation and co-indexation between negation and an indefinite NP
are not mutually entailing processes. While the Genitive of Negation requires
index-copying, index-copying does not guarantee the Genitive of Negation.
3.5.6.3. SAMPLEDERJVATION: A NEGATEDTRANSlTIVESENTENCE
Anned with these assumptions about the relationship between indefillite
NPs, Quantifier indexing, and Case-checking in spec/NegP, the restriction of
the Genitive of Negation to indefmite NPs are accounted for as follows.
Qoly an indefinite NP copies its index onto a c-commanding negative
operator. As in the preceding analysis, an AGENT NP, whether definite or
indefinite, cannot be Case-checked in specfNegP because it would have undergo
LF-Iowering to do 50. Instead, it raises to the specifier of TP and is Case
checked there at S-sttucture, reflected in personlnumber agreement on the
tensed verb.
An indefinite D-sttucture object has two options for LF Case-checking:
specIFP or speclNegP. Given that specIFP is limited 10 [+defmite] NPs (the
unavailability of an indefinite reading for the Accusative option is al50 a feature
of the dialect described by Pesetsky), [-definite] NPs of transitive verbs have
ooly one option, which corresponds to Genitive Case; Case-checking in
speclNegP. If an NP is [+definite], no index-copying takes place, Case
checking in speclNegP is not permitted and the NP must be Case-checked in
specIFP.
196
•
•
•
To re-phrase this in interpretive terms, since Genitive Case-assignment in
spec/NegP is only possible if index-eopying between the operator Neg and an
NP has taken place, and since this co-indexation is restricted to [-definite] NPs,
a Genitive object is unambiguously interpreted as indefinite, as desired.
Likewise, since spec/FP is restricted to [+definite] NPs, an Accusative NP is
unambiguously interpreted as definite.
3.5.6.4. SAMPLEDERIVATION: A NEGATED!NIRANSITIVESENTENCE
The derivation in passive and unaccusative sentences proceeds exactly as
in transitive sentences, except that the option of Case-checIàng in speclFP is
ruled out (the verbs are not specified [+Case)), and an additional option, S
structure Case-checIàng in specITP, is available. An indefinite D-structure
object copies its referential index onto the c-eommanding negative operator.
This permits Genitive Case-checIàng in spec/NegP. If the D-structure object is
[+definite], index copying does not take place and the NP must raise to specITP
at S-structure, where it triggers agreement on the tensed verb. An agenrive
argument of an intransitive verb, whether definite or indefinite, cannot lower to
spec/NegP. Accordingly, it raises to speclTP, where Nominative Case-checIàng
takes place.
Given that specITP is not restricted to [+definite] NPs, this alIows two
Case positions for an indefinite D-structure object of an unaccusative or passive
v~; Nominative Case-checIàng in specITP at S-structure and Genitive Case
checIàng in spec/NegP at LF. This prediets that the Nominative option alIows
both the definite and indefinite interpretations, while the Genitive option is
unambiguously interpreted as indefinite for arguments of both transitive and
197
•
•
•
intransitive verbs, which is consistent with Pesets1:y's data. Further. we accounl
for the unambiguously definile reading associaled with the Accusative option.
These facts are summarized in (84)-(85).
(84) UNACCUSATIVE AND PASSIVE VERBS
GEN -> [-definite]NOM -> [+definite] or [-definile]
(85) TRANSITIVE VERBS
GEN -> [-definite]ACC - > [+definite]
3.6. S~y
This analysis, which posits indefiniteness as a necessary initial condition
for the Genitive of Negation, is plausible and perhaps captures best the language
of younger speakers for whom the Genitive of Negation is a more marked
option. A wealmess in the analysis is that the main supporting c1aim, that Case
checking in speclNegP at LF requires Quantifier indexing, is otherwise
unmotivated. This can potentially be related to an additional feature-matching
restriction on case-checking in NegP; the co-indexation requirement for Case
checking in speclNegP is met by Quantifier indexing.
3.7. ENDNOTESTOCHAP'rER3
l1bis is an option that was nol available historically in Russiao. when the Genitive ofnegation surfaced whenever struetural conditions allowed (Neidle 1988:30).
2This is required ID account for the Accusative Case that surfaces OD expressions ofduration of lime. a fact that is troublesome for Case theory in general bUI appears in otberlanguages as we11. inc1uding Latin.
198
•
•
3Pesetsky (1982: fn. 57). Note that these expressions raise severa! additiolllÙproblems for Case theory in genera!, including the fact that they surface with ACC Casefollowing passive verbs and verbs that have been termed unaccusative. Note further that theability of these expression la bear the Genitive of Negation is dependent on the presence of thenegative intensifying particle ni. In !his way they are distinguished from the internai argumentsof the verb, whicb do not require the particle.
4We do not rule out a related explanation. Anticipating the aIllÙysis of Russian !hat isproposed in !his cbapter somewhat, the restriction la D-structure objects for distributive pophrases may also he related la a funCtiOIllÙ projection whicb is generated helow the base-positionof agentive NPs. Regarding agreement and no-agreement numera1 phrases, these might reflectwhether the phrase is Case-Iicensed in the funCtiOIllÙ projection al LF or in TP al S-structure(reflected by agreement on the verb). Sa essentia1ly what these phrases have in common is anadditional Case-licensing possibility whicb is restricted la D-structure objects, rather !han aprinciple whicb requires LF-raising and therefore restricts their distribution la properly governedpositions.
Snis con he seen as a Re!ativized UTAH (1.arson 1990:601): Idenrica1 r1lemalic,..,/alionships are represenred by idenrica! ,..,/alive hierarchical ,..,/alionships berween items al DstrucrUrt!. This relaxation of the hypothesis is required for the distinct base positions of Dstructure objects in CW, whicb neverthe!ess maintain the same hierarchica1 relationship withAgent NPs•• Sec Larsen (1990) for further discussion of!his proposai.
6Thjs is not necessarily universal. However, sec Chomsky (1992) for a proposai !hatit is the presence of agreement !hat forces S-structure Case-checking; otherwise, NPs raise al LFfor Case-checking, on the understanding !hat raising al !his leve! is "cbeaper".
7Note !hat, for the structure in (29) la he consistent with the morphologica1specification given in (28), the requiremenl must he salisfied by linear adjacency, salisfied by T,rather !han by the calegory label of its sister, which is Neg.
8BW2Ïo 1986:178ff
9The conclusion !hat the Genitive of Negation is a structural Case is also arrived al byLasnik (1990).
IONole that the ward order within PPS entails that the preposilional complement doesnot raise lO speclPP until LF. This is consistent with the proposai that only NOM is Casechecked al s-structure (hencc triggers agreement) and ail other Cases are checked al LF,including GEN Case in speclNegP.
11The concept of a class of Russian verbs which is distinguished in this way is notnow lO the literature. Neidle (1988) refers lO a distinction between open and closedcomplements, the former of which aIlow the Genilive of Negation and negative polarity item(NP!) Iicensing by a higber negative operalOr. Likewise, Progovaç (1991 and eisewhcre) arguesfor the transparency of certain clauses in Serbo-Croatian (subjunctive clauses) hased on NP!licensing by a negative operator in a higber clause. The proposai made here that thesecomplements are VPs is one way of implementing this idea stIuctura1ly•
199
•
•
12Note that lbe examples which permit lbe Genitive of Negation an: "reSlnlcturing"1ike environmenls (Rochette 1988). According1y, lbey an: amenable to an ultimatelymonoclausal structure analysis even if base-generated as bi-elausal.
13Chvany (1975:156), Babby (1980:105fl), Neidle (1988:53fl).
14Neidle (1988:86 fn. 14) mentions Peskovskij (1956:366-367), Peselsky (1981:8),Babby (1980:14fl), Karcevskij (1927:125-126), and Lobanova (1975:202-203).
15Note that even lbough lbe NP does not raise to specINegP unli1 LF, il must hebelow spec!NegP al S-strueture if it is to raise to specINegP al LF.
16A possibility which 1 will nol explore here is that FP con he related to a DPanalysis of argumenls as in Abney (1987). We cou1d maintain !hal [+definite] NPs generate afunetional projection FP (indefinites are haro NPs). Accordingly, Ibis FP would he optionally,getierated in any [+definite] argument position. This would have lbe positive resu\l of relalingthe [definiteness] restriction to olber proposals about lbe internai structure of definite andindefinite NPs. However, it would he difficult to avoid overgenerating Ibis projection. Giventhat it is only generatcd in negative sentences (a fact that is more evident in Colloquial Wdsh,where lbe head of FP is not null), lbe proposai that it is optionally sdected by NegP allows US to
constrain ils occurrence. However, if lbe prohlem ofovergeneration is dealt wilb by appealing 10
some notion of economy, as in Chon:.s1cy (1989) (FP being a language-specifie feature of lbegrammar), lben Ibis alternative opti':ln is viable. The analysis itself would not change, except!hat lbe relative order of FP and VP would he reversed, and F would have to raise to V to makespecNP a licit SpeclHead configuration in tensed sentences. However, given !hat we coneludebelow!hat lbe head ofFP is not specifiee! [+Case], according to U (1990) lbe combination of Fand V in the syntax will only he [+Case] if V raises into P, not the reverse. U proposes !hat agiven lexical item con be specifiee! as [+Case] or [-Case] or he unspecifiee! for the feature. Ifunspecifiee!, it con inherit lbe feature [+Case] from a head that moves into it, via fCllturepercolation à la Di Sciullo and Williams (1987). Thus, while the causative affix in somecompounds may be unspecifiee! for lbe feature [Case] it con become [+Case] if the head of lbecompound is [+Case]. See U (1990: 409-10 and m.9) for discussion.
17A1lbough Ibis structure posils a radically different position for NegP !han !hatproposee! by Pollock (198!!), it could be arguee! !hat it is in the spirit of that analysis, where hisproposee! AgrP (like our FP) is generatcd below NegP if NegP is present. The differences derivefrom our claim regarding the base position of NegP, not the relative hierarehy between NegPand a Case-position for the direct objecL
18Attributing SOUle restriction to Ibis projection is not wilbout precedent in lbeliterature. The extra Case position for direct objects proposee! by Mahajan (1990) for Hindi isidentifiee! wilb specifie NPs, and Johnson's (1990) and Noonan's (1992) projections areassociatee! wilb pronomina1 NP&.
19RecalI that the specifier of the VP dominating a velb-trace is not a Case-licensingposition in a [+tense] sentence, even if lbe verl> is specifiee! [+Case], due to the morphologicalcompleteness requirement of the definition of licit SpeclHead configuration. This forcesAeeusative Case licensing under government by the member of the verl> chain in Della inaffirmative sentences. However, lbe verl>'s [+Case] feature is inheritcd by the head of FP viahead-to-head raising, enabling the head ofFP to Case-license an NP in ils specifier.
200
•
•
2llNeidle (1988) aIso concludes that Gcnitive Case assignmcot must he a lexicalproper:y of the negatcd existential 11)1'.
210001 vcrbs that arc commonly morphologically negative arc typical modals, i.e.won 'f, can 'f, musfn 'f, wouldn 'f, etc., in English. $ce Payne 1985 for discussion.
201
•
•
4. CHAPTER 4: CASE-LlCENSING, 'EMBRACING' NEGATION, ANDDEFINITENESS IN COLLOQUIAL WELSH
4.1. INTRODUcnON
In Chapters 2 and 3 of this thesis, analyses were proposed 10 account for
the syntactic role of sentential negation in Case-licensing in Literary Welsh
(LW) and in Russian. It was suggested that while the head of NegP creates a
barrier for verb-raising in LW, it does not constitute a barrier in Russian. This
was related to the claim that Neg is a morphologically dependent lexical item in
Russian, but an autonomous lexical item in LW. This chapter, which deals with
data from Colloquial Welsh (CW), provides a kind of bridge between these two
languages. l
NegP in CW, as in LW, will be analyzed as generated immediately
above TP. It will be maintained that the two negative markers found in CW
(which can be loosely referred to as the pre-verbal and clause-medial negative
markers) are generated in the head of NegP and adjoined to VP, respectively.
The head of NegP in CW will be analyzed as a morphologically dependent
lexical item, as in Russian, which cannot surface independently of another
lexical head.
The relationship between NegP and TP proposed by Zanuttini (1991)
will be addressed, and 1 will argue that NegP is dependent on TP in CW. The
differences between the agreement patterns in negated relative clauses in LW
and CW will be derived from the morphologically dependent nature of the head
of NegP in CW.
202
•
•
1 will then propose an account for the fact that the negated counterparts
of non-periphrastic transitive ser.tences in CW require a lexical item 10
immediately precede the direct object; a requirement not found in LW. This will
be driven by the presence of the secondary negation marker intervening between
Delta ;,.nd the base-position of the direct object.
The fact that direct objects in negated periphrastic constructions do not
require this lexical item will provide support for the claim made in Chapter 2
that they do not reIy on the [+finite] V for Case; rather, they are Case-Iicensed
in the specifier of the phrase headed by the [-finite] verb.
1 will then extend the account of definiteness effects in negated sentences
in Russian 10 account for the fact that in at least one documented dialect of CW
(pembrokeshire Welsh), this lexical item is not found when the direct object is
[-definite], and is optional when the direct object is [+definite].2 With respect to
the Genitive of Negation construction in Russian, it was proposed that the
Specifier of NegP provides a potential Case-position for NPs; 1 will suggest that
this analysis can be extended to account for the paradigm in CW negated
clauses. The final section contains a paradigm involving variable word order
facts in negated sentences in Pembrokeshire Welsh.
Colloquial Welsh is sufficiently different from Literary Welsh in the
areas addressed in this thesis 10 warrant the brief description that follows.
4.1.1. WORDORDERlNCOUOQUIAL WELSB
The unmarked sentence type in CW is periphrastic. Periphrastic
constructions are made up of an inflected auxiliary (i.e. bod ('be'», an aspect
marker (progressive yn or perfective wedi) and an untensed verb (VN). Thus,
203
•
•
the typical way of conveying the senœnce John sings is not with VSO order, as
in (1) below, but rather with AUX-S-V-O order, as in (2).
(1) Canith Sion.sing-3sg SionSion sings.
(2) Mae Sion yn canu.is-3sg Sion PROG singSion sings.
The preponderance of the periphrastic construction in CW is noted by
Jones & Thomas (1977), and is supported by my work with native speakers. In
fact, certain verbs are restricted such that they may appear only in periphrastic
constructions.3
The clements within the VP in periphrastic constructions appear in the
fixcd order given in (3), and no other lexical items may intervene. Following
Harlow (1981), Sproat (1985) and others, we will assume that, as in LW,
surface VSO order results from the raising of the leftmost verbal element te
Tense (T).
(3)
PERFECTIVE[boc! wedi]
PROGRESSIVE VERB[boc! yn]
•An example of a periphrastic sentence which incorporates ail of these
clements is given in (4).
204
• (4) Mi dylai John [fod wedi bod yn edrych ar y teledu].PT should-3sg John be PERF be PROG watch at the televisionJohn sJwuId Jwve been looking al the television.4
[Jones & Thomas 1977:25]
V-raising characterizes regular VSO sentences as weil as periphrastic
sentences. The structure given in (5) illustrates the S-structure that will be
assumed for periphrastic sentences in CW, whicl. features an Aspect Phrase
(AspP) selected by V ar.d headed by the aspect marker (progressive yn or
perfective wedl).5
(5) TP
(6) Mae Sion yn canu.is John PROG singJohn is singing.
205
• 4.2. SEl'.'l'ErIo'TIAL NEGATION IN COLLOQUlAL WELSH
4.2.1. TwO NEGATIVE MARKERS
•
Unlike LW, in which the pre-verbal negative panicle ni(d) is sufficient
to negate a clause, negation in CW requires an additiomù, sentence medial
marker, dim.6 The pre-ve,bal negative marker found in LW is generally
dropped, (in fuct almost all of the sentential-initial markers discussed in Chapter
2 are dropped in CW), but should not be considered optional. While
considerably weakened, its presence can be established by its effect on the
following word. When preceding a vowel-initial verb, the pre-verbal negation
marker appears in reduced form as a prefix (d-). When preceding a consonant
initial verb, it tends to he dropped altogether, but its presence can be noted in
the form of obligatory consonant mutation on the verb.7 As illustrated in (7)
(10), the verb form palodd obligatorily appears as phalodd in a negated sentence
in LW, under the influence of the preceding negative panicle, ni(d). This initial
consonant mutation is obligatory in negated sentences in CW, even though the
negative marker itself is no longer overt.
(7) UCW:Palodd John yr ardd.dug-3sg John the gardenJohn dug the gartien.
(8) LW:Ni phalodd (*pa1odd) John yr ardd.Neg dug-3sg John the gardenJohn did not dig the garden.
206
•
•
(9) CW:Phalodd (*Palodd) John ddim 0 'r ardd.8
Neg-dug-3sg John Neg of the gardenJohn didn 't dig the garden.
(10) CW*Palodd John ddim o'r ardd.dug-3sg John Neg the gardenJohn didn't dig the garden.
At S-structure, the secondary negative marker dim follows the tensed
verb and the subject, but precedes the untensed verb and ail other elements in
the VP, including the aspectual markers bod wedi and bod yn. The example
given in (12) illustrates the position of dim with respect to the elements in VP.
Note the influence of the pre-sentential negative mark-er on the form of the
inflected auxiliary.9
(11) Mae Sion wedi bod yn canu.is John PERF be PROG singJohn /ws been singing.
(12) 'Dyw Sion ddim we<ii bod yn canu.Neg-is John Neg PERF be PROG singJohn /ws not been singing.
4.2.2. SENTEN11AL NEGATION VS. CONS'll1UENT NEGATION
We maintain here that ooly sentential negation generates a NegP. Given
that the secondary negation marker in CW is homophonous with the constituent
negator, it is important te be able to distinguish these occurrences. First, while
the secondary sentential negation marker is dependent on the presence of the
207
•
•
pre-verbal negation marker (as evidenced by consonant mutation on the tensed
verb), the constituent negator can appear in affirmative clauses, adjoined to any
constituent. Further, under certain conditions, the initial consonant of the
clause-medial negation marker is subject to the phenomenon of soft mutation,
widespread in the Celtic languages. The effect of soft mutation is represented
orthographicaIIy as ddim. This process distinguishes the sentential negation
marker from the constituent negator dim, which never undergoes soft mutation.
They are further distinguished by the effect of multiple negation markers
in a sentence. Whereas the sentential negative marker dim combines with the
pre-verbal negative marker to CMry a single negative force, constituent negation
adds a second negative quantity which, in combination with sentential negation,
results in canceling out the negative force. A sentence including both the
sentential and constituent negators is given in (13).10 The initial dim is adjoined
to the fronted constituent John.
(13) [NidIDim John] oedd ddim yn helpu.Neg John Neg-was-3sg Neg PROG helpIt wasn't John that wasn't helping.
[Jones & Thomas 19TI:325]
Distinguishing sentential from constituent negation in CW is therefore
relatively straightforward.
4.2.3. PREPosmON INSERTION IN NEGATED SENTENCES
•In CW, we find that the negative counterparts of simple transitive
sentences require that a particie be inserted before the direct object11 This is
illustrated in (14), as compared with the affirmative counterpart in CW, given in
(15).
208
•
•
•
(14) Phalodd John dc!im *(0) 'r ardd.Neg-clug-3sg John Neg PT the gardenJohn didn't dig the garden.
(15) Palodd John Or ardd.dug-3sg John the gardenJohn dug the garden.
Compare this with the LW forms of the same sentences, given below.
While the affirmative sentences are identical, sentences (14) and (16) differ with
respect to both the presence of the secondary negation marker and the presence
of a lexical item preceding the direct object.
(16) Ni phalodd John yr ardd.Neg dug-3sg John the gardenJohn didn't dig the garden.
(17) Palodd John yr ardd.dug-3sg John the gardenJohn dug the gartfen.
This particle is found preceding direct objects in VSO structures; in other
words, direct objects of [+tense] verbs. In periphrastic sente:lces, however,
negaton does not appear 10 affect the realization of the direct object. This is
illustrated in (18)-(19).
(18) Oedd John yn palu 'r ardd.was-3sg John PROG dig the gardenJohn was digging the gartien.
209
•
•
(19) 'Doedd John ddim yn palu 'r ardd.Neg-was John Neg PROG dig the gardenJohn wasn't digging the garden.
Accordingly, the occurrence of this particle in negated sentences
disûnguishes direct objects in periphrastic constructions from direct objects in
simple VSO constructions. Recall that these argument:; are distinguished with
respect to Case in LW; direct objects in simple constructions are exceptionally
Case-licensed under govemment, but periphrastic direct objects are
Case-checked in a Spec/Head configuration.
4.2.4. THE STATUS OF THE PRE- Al'lD PoST-VERBAL NEGATIVEMARKERs
These fucts raise severa! questions regarding the syntactic status of the
negative markers in CW. The first question hinges on their co-occurrence.
Given that the negative marker !hat surfaces on the tensed verb in CW cannot
occur without a c1ause-medial negative marker, it is plausible that their co
dependence derives from being generated as obligatary constituents of the same
maximal projection, a possibility explored in the Appendix to this dissertation.
However, we will maintain that the secondary negation marker is base-generated
adjoined ta a maximal verbal projection be10w NegP (VP or AspP).12
As in LW, 1 will assume !hat NegP is generated above TP. In LW, it
was argued that the head of NegP creates a barrier for V-to-C raising. In CW,
the head of NegP is not an independent lexical item; it will he analyzed as
affixal, and we will maintain that V-movement into Neg constitutes an
obligatory substitution inta an empty sIot. The secondary negative e1ement, dim,
does not undergo raising, and its linear order relative ta other components of the
210
• sentence reflects its base position in the structure. The S-structure of the CW
sentence Dyw Sion ddim yn CarlU ('John is not singing') is given in (20).
(20) NegP
A,
;,~_._,_._.- ..-----
'dyw Siont
yn
v
canu
It has been proposed (Z2nuttini 1990, 1991) that NegP may have an
additional property: that of requiring TP in order for it to be generated. In the
following section, 1 argue that this requirement holds in CW as well.13
4.3. SENTENTIAL NEGATION AND '1'ENSE IN COU,OQUIAL WELSH
In her work on negation in Romance languages, Z2nuttini (1991) claims
that sentential negation may involve two distinct maximal projections: one
(NegP1) that cannot occur independently of T, and another (NegP2) that bas no
such requirement. In a sentence without TP, NegP1 will not be generated,
rendering this kind of negation unavaiIable. She maintains further that
211
parametric variation allows NegP to be generated immediately above TP or VP,
and that a sentential negation marker can be either the head or the specifier of
NegP. A language may instantiate NegPl, NegP2, or both.
According to Zanuttini, given that NegPl requires TP, NegPl-type
sentential negation should not be available for negating past participles, absolute
constructions, or lrue (as opposed to suppletive) imperatives. In Chapter 2 the
fuct that NegP is not used ta negate infinitivals was mentioned in the context of
determining the base position of NegP. Since this analysis assumes that [-finite)
clauses do not generate TP in Welsh, this fuct suggests that Welsh may
instantiate Zanuttini's NegPl. We discuss these predictions beIow, and show
that in WeIsh, too, the generation of NegP is dependent on the generation of
•
•TP.
4.3.1. INFINrnvALS
•
We adopt Borsley's (1984, 1987) proposaI that complements of control
verbs in WeIsh are VPs, not TPS.14 Accordingly, NegP should not be able to
negate these constituents. Consistent with the dependency observed, NegP does
not appear in [-finite) constructions in CW. Instead, these constituents are
negated by using the negative verb peidio (a) ('to cease').15 This is illustrated in
(21)-(23). (Jones & Thomas 1977:333)
(21) Mae Mair wedi trio gweId John.is Mary PERF try see JohnMary Ms tried 10 see John.
(22) Mae Mair wedi trio peidio â gweId John.is Mary PERF try stop with see JohnMary Ms lried MIlO see John.
212
•
•
•
(23) 'Dydy Mair ddim wedi trio peidio â gweld John.Neg-is Mary Neg PERF try stop with see JohnMary hasn 'rrried Mr to see John.
This can be compared with the use of the negative verb to negate [-finite]
verbs in modal constructions. (Jones & Thomas 1977:335)
(24) Ddylet ti ddim aros.Neg-should you Neg stayYou shouIdn 'r stay.
(25) Ddylet ti ddim peidio ag aros.Neg-should you Neg stop with stayYou shouldn't Mt stay.
(26) Mi ddylet ti beidio ag aras.PT should-you stop with stayYou shouId Mr sray.
4.3.2. PAST PARllCIPLES
Consider the sentences given be1ow. Sentence (27) has a negated
auxiliary, and (28) a negated past participle, and these result in distinct scopal
relations between the negative operator and the adverb.
(27) Mary has not aIways paid taxes.[Ir is Mt the case thor Mary has aIways paid taxes]
(28) Mary has aIways not paid taxes.[It is the case thor Mary has aIways Mt paid taxes]
213
• zanuttini claims that these options are available in English because it
instantiates both NegPI and NegP2. In (28), NegP2 is available even though
NegPI is blocked.16 A language that has only NegPI will not be able to express
these two propositions by negating either the auxiliary or the past participle.
Thus, in Italian, zanuttini demonstrates that sentential negation can be invoked
to express only the first proposition. This is iIIustrated in (29)-(30).
(29) Maria non ha sempre pagato le tasse.Maria Neg AUX a1ways paid-past part. DET taxesMary hasn't always paid taxes.
(30) *Maria ha sempre non pagato le tasse.Maria AUX a1ways Neg pay-past part. DET taxesMary has always not paid taxes.
If sentential negation in Welsh is of type NegPI, dependent on the
generation of TP, we would expect it to pattern with Italian with respect to these
constructions. Significantly, what we find is that in the interpretation of
sentences like (31) the negative operator necessarily has scope over the
adverbial.
(31) 'Dyw Mair ddim wedi talu trethi yn rheloaidd.Neg-is M. Neg PERF pay taxes in ruleMary hasn't always paid taxes (i.e. has Mt paid taxes regularly)
To express the proposition that Mary has a1ways Mt paid taxes, CW
rather naturally uses erioed ('never') in place ofdim.
214
•
•
(32) 'Dyw Mair erioed wedi talu trethi.Neg-is M. never after pay taxesMary 1uJs never paid laxes.
This is not te say that Welsh is incapable of capturing different scopes of
negation. To negate the lower [-finite] VP in a perlphrastic sentence, the verb
peidio is used. Thus, the required contrast is captured by using this negative
verb. This is illustrated in (33)-(34).
(33) Wneith Sion ddim arcs.Neg-will John Neg stayJohn won '1 slay (= unwilling 10 Slay).
(34) Gwneith Sion peidio aros.will John cease stayJohn will nol slay (= willing not to slay)
What is critical to this investigation is the observation that NegP cannot
be invoked to negate a constituent that is [-tense] in Welsh.
4.3.3. ABsOLUŒ CONSTRucnONS
zanuttini adopts Belletti's (1989) and Kayne's (1989) proposai that
absolutives are AgrPs, not TPs. Accordingly, she predicts that NegPl will be
unavailable with these constructions. Again, sentential negation in CW shows
the predicted constraints. Instead of NegP, a negative fonn of the perfective
marker is used. 17 The data are given in (35)-(36).
(35) Wedi arcl cyrraedd yn hwyr, ynddi heurodd Mary.PERF on arrive late, 3fsg apologîzed MaryHaving arrived lare, Mary apologized.
21S
• (36) Heb iddi cyrraedd yn hwyr, ...without to-her arrive lateNor having arrived lare... (lit. Wirhour arriving lare)
4.3.4. IMPERATIVES
•
•
zanuttini's discussion of imperatives invokes a critical distinction
between rrue and suppletive forms, only the latter of which generate a TP.
Verbal inflection distinguishes the two forms. While true imperative forms lack
tense features, suppletive forms use an inflected form borrowed from another
paradigm, e.g. present indicative. She proposes that NegPI should occur only
with suppletive forms of the imperative.
This hypothesis finds strong support in Italian, which has both forms of
the imperative. The pre-verbal marker non, associated with NegP l, is found
only with the suppletive forms, used for 2pl and 2sg.18
The imperative in Welsh uses the 2sg and 2pl forms of the present
indicative paradigm, thus satisfying the definition of a suppletive imperative,
and, according to zanuttini, should permit NegPl. This is consistent with what
we find in LW, where the imperative pre-sentential particle results from the
merger of NegP and IllP.
(37) Cenwch!sing-plSing!
(38) Na chenwch!Neg sing-plDon'( sing!
216
•
•
•
CW, however, displays a strong preference ta negate an imperative not
with NegP. but rather with the negative vero peidio, aIso found in the negation
of infmitivais and past-participles. t9 This is illustrated in (39).
(39) Paid a ehenweh!Cease with singDon't sing! (Stop singing!)
Given that the imperative in CW, as in LW, is a suppletive form, the
constraint is unexpected. There are severa! possible explanations for this. Ether
imperatives are subject ta a more genera! constraint, in addition to the TP
requirement, or imperatives do not generate TPs in CW, even though they use a
suppletive form, or sententiai negation in Weish is not in faet a NegPI, and
hence does not require TP.
Basee! on the consisteney of the other tests, 1 will adopt the first
explanation. SpecificaIly, it seems plausible that a special form of negation is
required for imperatives, but this is not driven by the presence or absence of
TP. Note that sueh a position is compatible with Zanuttini's anaiysis. According
to her proposai, it is not the case that suppletive imperative forms (as found in
CW) are required ta be negated by NegPI; rather, true imperatives are required
not be negated by NegPl. Accordingly, these facts do not constitute
counterexarnples; rather, they indicate the operation of an additionai restriction.
Note, in this regard, that while the use of the negative verb ta express
negated imperatives is strongly preferred, sentences like those in (40)-(41) are
alternative means of expressing prolu"bition with regular sententiaI negation.
217
• (40) 'Dach chi ddim i ganu.Neg-be you Neg PROG singYou are not ta sing.
(41) 'Dach chi ddim i fod i ganu.Neg-be you Neg PROG be PROG singYou are not ta be singing.
Thus, NegP is available for sentences expressing prohibition as long as
the imperative is not used.
l will briefly remark here that the reIationship between a unique form of
sentential negation and imperatives has long been noted. Hom (1989) mentions
that, in a survey of syntactic realization types for speech act distinctions by
Sadock and Zwicky (1985:175ff), approximately half of the languages surveyed
displayed a negative imperative sentence type, the prohibitive, which differed
significantly from other negative and/or imperative types. "In three-quarters of
the languages surveyed there are no straightforward negative imperatives, the
functional gap being filled by special negative markers, non-imperative verb
forms, or both". (Hom 1989:447). It is likely that there is a more general
constraint operating here, which is alse instantiated in Welsh.20
We will leave this as an unexplained but not contradictory facto As a
whole, the restrictions on sentential negation of the type ni(d)•••dim in CW
support the hypothesis tbat NegP patterns with Zanuttini's NegP1, and cannot
be generated in a sentence that does not instantiate TP.
4.3.5. CONCLUSION
•In this section, we have proposed tbat NegP in CW bas the following
properties.
218
• (i) NegP is generated above TP, and is only generated in sentencesthat include TP;
(ii) NegP is headed by a reduced (morphologically dependent) fonnof the LW negation marker (like Russian, but unlike LW, wherethe head of NegP is an independent lexical item);
(iii) The c1ause-medial negation marker dim is generated adjoined to averbal projection beicw DeltaP.
Be1ow, we will show how these characteristics attributed to NegP in CW
provide an explanation for the interaction between sentential negation and Case
Iicensing manifested in agreement marlàng, and account for sorne strilàng
paraIIels between CW and the LW and Russian paradigms discussed in Chapters
2 and 3.
4.4. SENTEN'I1AL NEGATION AND CASE lN CW
4.4.1. NEGA'IED RELAllVE CLAUSES lN CW
ln Chapter 2, we developed an analysis of relativization out of negated
clauses in Literary Welsh driven in large measure by the blocking effect of the
head of NegP on XO-raising. RecaI1 that in LW, a negated relative clause is
introduced by the element na, ana1yzed as the reflex of Neg raising 10 C. When
the argument base-generated in speclDeltaP is relativized out of a negated
relative clause, subject agreement must surface on the verb and a pronominal
NP in specIDe1taP is not permitted. If a VSO direct object is relativized, a
resumptive pronoun stIategy is required, and the in situ pronomina1 may be
dropped ifagreement is triggered on Neg. This is illusttated in (42)-(44).
219
•
•
•
(42) Ydynioni na welsant (*welodd) [e]i Mairthe men Neg+C saw-3pl (*saw-3sg) [el Maryrhe men rhar didn'r see Mary
(43) Ydyn na welodd Mair *(eC)the man Neg+C saw-3sg Mary himthe man rhar Mary didn 'r see
(44) Ydyn nas welodd Mair (eC)the man [[Neg+Agr]C] saw Mary (him)rhe man rhar Mary didn'r see (him)
This was derived by the blocking effect of Neg on [V+ T]-raising 10 C.
Thus, while wh-movement to spec/CP is permitted, agreement with the
A'-chain headed by the subjecl operalor is established at T. There is no licit way
for the direct object to raise to spec/CP (which would entail A-movement over
the subject ta spec/NegP, then A'-movement to spec/CP). This forces a
resumptive strategy for relativization of VSO direct objects in negated clauses.
We have taken the position that V-movement into Neg is obligatory in
CW. This is driven by the morphologically reduced status of Neg (unlike in
LW, it never occurs as an independent lexical item). This line of argument leads
us to assume !hat there is no barrier interfering with V-to-C raising in CW, and
we predict that subject relativization in negated clauses shoul':! pattern with
subject relativization in affirmative clauses. Agreement should be established al
CP.
The agreement patterns found in negated relative clauses in CW
substantiate this prediction. Unlike in LW, in CW there is no subject agreement
220
•
•
•
on the tensed verb when a subject is relaùvized out of a negated clause. This is
iIlustrated in (45).
(45) Ybechgyn welodd mo'r eneth21
the boys Neg-saw-3sg Neg-P-the girllhe boys who didn '1 see lhe girl
[rallerman 1990b:298, fn. 5]
The pattern of agreement under subject re1ativization in negated clauses
in CW is identical to the pattern found in afftrmative relative clauses. While
there are!Wo pctenùal Case conftgurations below CP; TP and NegP, neither of
these conftgurations saùsftes the deftnition of a licit SpeclHead Case
conftguration, because the head and the specifter of these maximal projecùons
are traces. Accordingly, the lowest licit Case conftguration for the subject is at
CP, just as in afftrmative relative clauses in CW and in LW.22 This is illustrated
in the structure given in (46).
221
•
•
(461
NP-;
y bechgyn welodd
t
This provides a straightforward account for the lack of subject agreement
on the tensed verb; such personlnumber inflection is the reflex of Case-checking
at TP.
Note, however, that the pre-sentential particle analyzed in Chapter 2 as
an agreeing complementizer, a, does not surface. Thus, although the [Neg+V)
complex raises to C, providing a licit Case-configuration for an A'-chain, the
effect of Case-checking in speclCP is not overt.
As stated earlier, the pre-sentential particles do not surface in CW. Just
as the presence of negation is reflected in the mutation effects on the first
consonant of the tensed verb (as weIl as the presence of dim), the underlying
222
• presence of the head of CP can generaIly be established by its mutation effects
on the initial consonant of the tensed verb. The agreeing and non-agreeing forms
of the complementizer are distinguishable by their mutation effects: a triggers
soft mutation, and y(r) does not trigger any mutation.23 However, the mutation
effect on the tensed verb in negated clauses is controlled by negation, not by the
complementizer. This makes it impossible te determine by mutation effects
whether the form of the complementizer is the agreeing form a or the non
agreeing form y(r). As a result, Case-checking at CP in these structures is
reflected only in the lack of agreement with the chain elsewhere in the clause.
4.4.1.1. VSO DIREeT OBJEeT RELATIVIZA110N
•
•
When we tum to relativization of VSO direct objects, we find that an
asymmetry exists in CW that is not found in LW. Thus, while subjects in CW
pattern with what has been termed the 'direct' pattern of agreement, even in
negated relative clauses, VSO direct objects continue to exhibit a resumptive
strategy. This asymmetry is consistent with the account given so far. In Chapter
2 it was argued that the in situ pronominal found in these constructions in LW is
due to the fact that, although the direct object can create an A-ehain by
indexation with a null pleonastic in specJNegP, it cannot mise te specfCP, as
this would entail A-movemelll over the subject in speclDeltaP. A-movement
must proceed through eaeh interVening specifier. The lowest A-position for the
VSO direct object is in specJNegP, whieh is higher than the A-position for the
subject. This forces a resumptive pronoun strategy.
In CW the situation for the direct object bas not ehanged, despite the faet
that NegP does not introduce a barrier for V-mising. We find that, in CW too, a
resumptive strategy is required for VSO direct objects.
223
•
•
(47) Ybechgyn welodd yr eneth monyn nhwthe boys Neg-saw-3sg the girl Neg-P-3pl themthe boys that the girl didn 't see.
[Tallerman 1990b:298]
In this way, the proposai that the head of NegP in CW does not
constitute a barrier for verb-raising to C provides an explanation for a
subject-object asymmetry in negated clauses in CW that is not found in LW.
While the chain created by subject relativization is Case-checked in spec/CP, a
direct object is still blocked from moving te that position.
Note that the third option in LW, where a pronominal NP can trigger
object agreement on the head of NegP, is not found in CW. Case-checking in
spec/NegP will not be ruled out in principle (in fact, LF Case-checking of
[-definite] NPs will be an option in CW); the lack of agreement on Neg is
derivable from the CAR. As will be discussed in the following section,
pronominal VSO direct objects in negated sentences are preceded by the lexical
item o. Agreement with a pronominal NP is triggered, as expected, on this
head, which provides a lower licit SpeclHead configuration for the VSO direct
object. This will be clarified in the following section.
4.4.2. SUBJEcr-OBJEcr ASYMMETRIES AND CASE IN NEGATEDCLAUSES IN CW
In Chapters 2 and 3 of this thesis, a Case-licensing mechanism was
invoked which allows the trace of a raised V in Delta te assign Case under
government te a VSO direct object. Case via govemment is not blocked by the
presence of NegP in LW. Thus, while a pronominal VSO direct object may
forro a chain with a pleonastic in speclNegP in LW (triggering agreement on
224
•
•
•
Neg), this is not required. A pronominal in this position is acceptable even if it
does not uigger agreement. This is illustrated in (48)-(49).
(48) Palodd Sion ef.dug-3sg John itJohn dug it.
(49) Ni phalodd Sion ef.Neg dug-3sg John itJohn didn't dig it.
Similarly, as shown in (50)-(51), negation does not interfere with the
ability of a non-pronominal NP to be Case-licensed under government.
(50) Palodd Sion yr ardd.dug-3sg John the gardenJohn dug the garden.
(51) Ni phalodd Sion yr ardd.Neg dug-3sg John the gardenJohn didn't dig the garden.
This is as expected, given that NegP in LW, unlike in Russian, does not
intervene between the position from which Case is assigned under government
and the VSO direct object. What we find in CW is quite different. If the clause
is negated, the lexical item 0 must occur immediateIy preceding the VSO direct
object. This item is homophonous with a preposition meaning 'of that surfaces
in partitive constructions, and is often glossed as such.
22S
•
•
(52) Phalodd Sion ddim ohono fo.Neg-dug-3sg John Neg of-3sg itJohn didn't dig it.
[Jones & Thomas 1977:323]
Since we maintain that agreement reflects S-structure Case-checking in a
Spec/Head configuration, the agreement found on this element is analyzed as
resulting from such an operation.
Given that this analysis obviates the distinction between Case-licensing
of pronominal and non-pronomi.,al NPs in VSO direct object position (they are
both Case-licensed under government), we predict that whatever interferes with
the Case-licensing of pronominal VSO direct objects should interfere equally
with that of non-pronominal NPs. This is borne out; non-pronominal VSO direct
objects alse require the preposition.24 This is shown in (53)-(54).
(53) Palodd Sion yr ardd.dug-3sg John the gardenJohn dug the garden.
(54) Phalodd Sion ddim o'r ardd.Neg-dug-3sg John Neg of-the gardenJohn didn'l dig the garden.
First, we will address the issue of what blacks Case-as~ignment under
government te these NPs in negated sentences. Based on the anaiysis of Russian
in Chapter 3, we will then propose an account of how Case-licensing is
accomplished in these structures.
226
• 4.4.3. MEDIAL NEGATION AS A BARRIER 1'0 CASE-ASSlGNMENT
Reca1l how this Case-licensing mechanism functions. The chain of the
raised V includes a trace in Delta. From this position, the V-chain can assign
Case to an NP that it governs. However, the ability of the V-chain to assign
Case is constrained such that Case can only be assigned into the specifier of the
maximal projection it immediately dominates. The constraint on this kind of
Case-licensing will now be refined further, such that an intervening potential
Case-assignee will block Case-assignment to a lower argument.
In a paper on stylistic inversion in French, Valois & Dupuis (1989)
argue that an intervening subject blocks Case-assignment under government to a
lower NP, even though the subject does not receive this Case itself.25 They
consider this proposai to be in the spirit of Rizzi's (1990) reIativized minimality:
"[A]lthough the subject NP does not receive case from the verb, it is
nonetheless a potential case "receiver", just as a wh-phrase in an intermediate
COMP is a potential antecedent for a trace it c-commands." (Valois & Dupuis
1989:20, fn. 8) Thus, an intervening potential Case-assignee blocks Case
assignment to a lower potential Case-assignee.26
In the negative structures in CW, the clause-medial marker dim
intervenes between the position from which Case can be assigned under
government (Delta) and the position into wlùch Case can be assigned under
government (specIVP). 1 will maintain that it is the presence of dim that
interferes with the ability of the chain of the raised V to Case-license a VSO
direct object; that dim in CW counts as a cIoser potentiaI Case-assignee.27
This cIaim is consistent with the fact that dim was diachronicalIy an NP
meaning 'thing', and is still homophonous with it.2S Thus, aside from the
227
•
•
question of whether dim actually requires Case, it is not inconceivable that il has
the status of a potential Case-assignee.
Nevertheless, support for the hypothesis that dim is in fact assigned Case
might come from a phenomenon referred to by Harlow (1981) and BalI &
Muller (1992) as direct object mutation (DOM). DOM is so-càJled soft
mutation; under its influence an initial d surfaces as dd. Zwicky (1984) proposes
that the trigger for soft mutation is syntactic as opposed to lexical, and that
Accusative Case is the trigger for DOM. While the discontinuity of the verb and
the direct object raised problems for Zwicky's analysis, our hypothesis that Case
is assigned by a member of the verb-chain in Delta avoids this dilemma. Given
that the sentential negation marker dim (as opposed to the homophonous
constituent negation marker) is subject to this Iànd of mutation (Sad1er
1988:230), surfacing as ddim, we might argue that it bears Accusative Case.
This situation is illustrated by the structure given in (55), in which the
direct object is not Case-licensed.
(55)
t t
yr ardd
228
• (56) *Phalodd Sion ddim yr ardd.Neg-dug-3sg John Neg the gardenJohn didn'( dig the garden.
If this daim is correct, then o-insertion is required for an NP that would
otherwise be Case-licensed under government; not for an NP that is Case
checked in a SpeclHead configuration. Thus, we have an explanation for why
the preposition is not required under negation for the direct object in a
periphrastic sentence. Since these complements are Case-licensed in the specifier
of the [-finite] verb, and do not rely on the raised V for Case, it is not
surprising that an additional Case marker is not required. The S-structure of a
negated periphrastic sentence is given in (57).
•
•
(57)
'dyw
Sion
t
~ddimCASE
.1
: V+Agr NP-i
l---r----11yn ei weld ef
229
• (58) 'Dyw Sion ddim yn ei weld (ef).Neg-is-3sg Sion Neg PROG 3sgm see (him)John didn'[ see him.
4.4.4. CASE-ÙCENSING OF VSO DIRECT OBJECTS
•
Thus, as in Russian, VSO direct objects in negated clauses in CW are
unable to be Case-licensed under govemment. It was proposed in the preceding
cho.pter that these arguments have the option of being Case-checked in spec/FP,
a functional projection generated within DeltaP. The introduction of this
p,ujection within our analysis of Russian was driven largely by theoretical
considerations, the presence of I-P being inferred from Accusative Case-marking
which, according to our analysis, could not come from the verb. Motivation for
the introduction of this projection was derived from a property unique to it: its
restriction 10 [+definite] NPs. These data from CW suggest an analysis where
the inability of the verb 10 assign Case under govemment to VSO direct objects
forces Case-licensing within FP, as in Russian.
Let us assume that the Case-licensing head for VSO direct objects in
negated constructions in CW is FP, the head of which is 0.29 A pronominal, if
oven, follows the head of FP. On the assumption that neither pronominal nor
non-pronominal NPs in Welsh raise to their Case positions until LF, these NP~
must be generated inside FP.30 The S-structure of a negated transitive sentence
with a pronominal direct object is given in (59).
230
• 1591
F+Agr·k NP·k [ +pronominal)
: ~ ,, ,: ;l. .__ ....•__.•......_.....~
'dyw Sion ddim ohono el
A non-pronominal NP raises ta specIFP for Case-checking at LF.
4.4.5. (IN)DEFINI'ŒNESS REvlSITED: CASE-UCENSING IN SPEClNEGP
It has been noted that the lexical item we have analyzed as the head of
FP is not found preceding [-definite] direct abjects (Awbery (1988, 1990),
Hendrick (1988:261 fn. 27». This is ilIustrated in (60)-(61).
(60) Yfais i ddim te.drink-past-lsg 1 Neg tea1 didn 'r drink any rea.
231
•
•
(61) Ddarllenais 1 ddim llyfrau.read-past-1sg 1 Neg books1didn 'r read any books.
[Hendrick 1988:262)
According to Awbery (1990), a three-way distinction is found in
Pembrokeshire Wclsh regarding the appearance of 0 (which she refers to as a
preposition) in negated clauses. Her conclusions, based on archival recordings
of spontaneous spoken speech by a number of individual native speakers of
Pembrokeshire Wclsh, are that pronouns a/ways occur with the preposition,
indefinite NPs never appear with the preposition, and definite NPs may or may
not appear with the preposition.
It is worth noting that Awbery's reference to the oprionaliry of the
preposition is based on its appearance in sorne but not all sentences where the
direct object is [+definite]. It does not necessari1y follow from this that any one
speaker uses the preposition optionally in such structures; instead, the exhibited
variation may he due to certain individuals consistently using the preposition and
others consistently dropping it, under the same conditions. Thus, optionality
may not exist within any individual grammar. Accordingly, our analysis will
primarily be concerned with addressing those structures where the preposition is
always found (pronominal direct objects) and those where it is never found
(mdefinite direct objects). We will, however, aIlow for optionality of the
preposition with non-pronominal [+definite] direct objects.
Awbery summarizes the situation for object NPs as shown in (62).
PRONOUN
•(62)
ddim+objectddim+o+object +
lNDEFINITE NP
+
DEFINlTENP
++
232
• We have analyzed the presence of 0 as reflecting Case-ehecking in
spec/FP (where 0 is the head of FP). Let us now further extend the analysis
developed for Russian and analyze its absence as indicating that an NP is
Case-ehecked in speclNegP at LF. If this is correct, the paradigm parallels to a
remarkable degree the Russian data described by Neidle (1988). There, the
Genitive of Negation (Case-ehecking in spec/NegP) is available to both
[-definite] and [+definite] NPs, and the Accusative option (Case-ehecking in
spec/FP) is restricted to [+definite] NPs. The LF structure of a negated VSO
structure with a [-defmite] NP is given in (63). Both the subject and object NPs
have raised to their LF Case-ehecking positions.
t-o
•
•
(63)
NPo~
1!
ii1
iL__I
1 t,
l -'
233
•
•
Note, however, that these data suggest an additional restriction: that
pronominal NPs cannor be Case-licensed in spec/NegP. One met.'lod of
implementing this teehnically would be by positing a restriction associated with
Case-licensing in spec/NegP in this dialect to [-pronominal] NPs. However, a
less ad hoc alternative is available. In Chapter 2 we proposed that pronominal
NPs must be Case-checked at S-structure in Welsh, whenever possible. This
requirement is reflected in agreement, the reflex of S-structure Case-ehecking;
only pronominal NPs trigger agreement in Welsh. The obligatory presence of
FP with pronominal direct objects in negated clauses arguably foIIows from the
same language-specific feature of Welsh. Pronominal NPs must make use of the
S-structure Case-ehecking option, in spec/FP, rather than the LF option of
raising to spec/Negp.31
Consider next the optionality of 0 with non-pronominal [+definite] NPs.
Given the FP restriction to [+definite] NPs and the S-structure Case-checking
requirement for pronominal NPs, non-pronominal [+definite] direct object NPs
are unique in CW in having IWO Case-licensing options in negated clauses;
Case-licensing in speclNegP or spec/FP. The exhibited optionality of 0 with
[+definite] NPs follows.32
LF Case-checking in speclNegP requites the kind of movement over an
intervening subject that was ruIed out at S-structure for relative clauses ir.
WeIsh. Note, however, that this constraint on movement bas to be relaxed at LF
in any case. The VSO direct object that creates a chain by indexation with a null
pleonastic in speclNegP in LW must raise te that position at LF fer expletive
replacement. Accordingly, the fact that the non-pronominal VSO direct object
234
• raises to spec/NegP at LF for Case-ehecking does not introduce any new
complexity to our account.
4.4.6. VARIABLE WORD-ORDER IN PUmROIŒSHIRE WELSH
As discussed at length above, the main negator in CW is dim. According
to Awbery (1990), its exact position in Pembrokeshire Welsh (PW) varies
systematically according to the nature of the subject NP. We do not consider the
grammatical functions subject and object to be primitives of the theory; rather,
they are defined structurally. For our purposes, a fundamental distinction exists
between arguments that are base-generated in spec/De1taP (AGENTS) and
arguments that are base-generated inside the lower VP (PATIENTS, THEMEs).
Viewed from this perspective, the generalization appears te he that D-structure
objects can oceur in two distinct S-structure positions in PW, and that this is
sensitive to the property of definiteness.33
First, the data show that an indefinite NP which is aD-structure object
always follows the negative marker, as in (64).
(64) Ond ddath ddim pethe i ben fel odd hi wedi fwriadu.but carne-3sg Neg things to end as was she after intendBur things didn 'r work our as she Md intended.34
However, when such an NP is a definite noun, as in (55)-(56), it may
precede or follow the negative marker.
(65) A fywodd ddim 'r 'en grwban bach.and lived-3sg Neg the old tortoise littleand the little oTd ronoise didn 'r survive.
235
• (66) Ath 'y nhad ddim i mas i ddryehidwent-3sg my father Neg to outside to lookMy falher didn 'r go owside lO look.
The caveat reg:trc!ing the optionaiity of definite NPs. initiaily raised with
respect 10 the presence of the particie 0, applies here as weil. Nevertheless. until
these faets can be ehecked with a native speaker of Pembrokeshire Welsh. our
"Ulaiysis will allow for definite NPs to have (WO options in PW, as in the
preceding section.
When the NP in question follows dim, the appearanee of 0 is related to
whether it is [+definite] or [-definite]. Thus, as in (67), a definite NP following
the negative marker dim is optionaily preceded by the preposition 0, but as in
(68), an indefmite NP following dim is never preceded by this preposition.3s
(67) A ddath ddim (0) )' gyfreth i rym nesbod hi 'n y Ionawr.and came-3sg Neg the Iaw into force till be it in the JanuaryAnd rhe law didn 'r come inro force rill JanU4ry.
(68) Alle ddim (*0) mashin i ddwad lawr 'na.could-3sg Neg machine to come down thereA machin~ couldn'r come down rhere.
1 will tentative1y suggest the following explanation for these variable
word order facts. In Chapter 3, an anaiysis was proposed for the Russian diaiect
described by Pesetsky, where the Genitive of Negation is restricted 10 [-definite]
NPs. 1 proposee! that Case-checking in speclNegP was restricted 10 NPs that
have copied their referential index onto the negative operator, and that index
copying affects only [-definite] NPs. We can potentially extend this proposai
further to account for the Pembrokeshire We1sh paradigm by claiming that
236
•
•
index-copying does not merely allow but forces an NP ta be Case-licensed in
speclNegP. Accordingly, indefinite NPs must remain in their base-position at S
structure, within the lower VP, following dim. Definite NPs, on the other hand,
have [wo options: the option of being Case-Iicensed in spec/FP at LF (thus
appearing following dim 0), or, alternatively, the option of raising ta
speclDeltaP at S-structure (preceding dim) and being Case-Iicensed in speclTP
at LF.36
4.5. S~~y
In this chapter, we have proposed that sentential negation in CW differs
from LW in the following respects. First, the head of NegP in CW is a
morphologicalIy dependent lexical item. Second, sentential negation in CW
requires an additional negation marker, generated in an adjoined position
between DeltaP and VP.
We have argued that NegP in WeIsh is dependent on the generation of
TP. The lack of NegP in [-finite] clauses, absolutive constructions and past
participles were all derived by this constraint.
The analysis also accounts for the fact that relativized subjects in negated
clauses in CW differ from the equivalent sentences in LW (exhibiting the direct
pattern of agreement), while relativized direct objects continue 10 exhibit a
resumptive pronoun strategy. In this way, an asymmetry that does not exist in
LW has been accounted for in CW.
Furthermore, we have accounted for the lexical item found preceding
VSO direct objects in CW negated clauses, by proposing that the option of
Case-licensing under govemment is blocked by the secondary negation marker,
dim, which counts as a closer potential Case-assignee. We have proposed that
237
•
•
the additional Case-licensing option required (reflected in the presence of the
preposition 0) is related to the presence of the functional projection FP,
proposed in the preceding chapter for Russian Case-licensing of direct objects in
negated sentences.
ln the final section we argued that speclNegP provides an alternative Case
position for VSO direct objects, and data was introduced that supports the daim
that FP is restricted to [+definite] NPs, as proposed in Chapter 3.
4.6. ENDNOTES TO CHAPTER 4
IThe distinction between LW and CW is nol hetw.... a written fonn and a spokenfonn of the same language; LW and CW con bath he written and spoken. LW is rescrvc:d formore fonnal situations. for example speeches. officiBJ letters, ete. Il is closest 10 the fonn thalWe\sh lOOk when the Bible was original1y lnlIIS1ated inlO We\sh in 1563. and bas beonesscntially fro:œn in that state. (This exp\ains why certain sentences suggested 10 my informantswete tetmed 'biblical sounding'.) Nevetthe1ess, bath LW, in the sense of the fonnal or srandardlanguage. and CW are subjecl 10 regional variation. Sec PUch (1971) for discussion. The CWdata in !his section are taken from a variety of so=. principally Jones &. Thomas (19TI) andAwbety (1988. 1990). The data in the discussion of NegP and TP. excepl where otherwisenoted, were providc:d by my We1sh informants. John Williams and Ewen Edwards.
:zone Jack of 0 preccding indcfinile direct abjects in CW is also nolcd bY Hcndrick(1988).
3These include nabod ('10 know'), gaIujo ('10 rain'). gobeijo ('10 hope'). kan ('10love').~ ('10 he accustomed 10'). ete. (pUch 1971:139). Many of these vetbs con heclassified as statives. Sec NoolI&II (1992) for an intriguing analysis ofa similar l'acts in Irish.
4-rhe fi."St instance ofbod bas undergone initial consonanl mutation. surfacing as/ad.
Sne IWo VPs surrounding AspP provide base-positions for bod and the [-tcnsel vcrb,respective1y. The base position for bod must dominate the base-position of the aspecl markerSÏDce il precedes the 1atter even when [-tensel. when. byassumption. il bas nol raised out ofVP.
6ne marker dim is usee! for regular sentence negalion colTeSpOnding 10 Eng1ish not.However, dim is replaced by the negalive markers byth or erioed 10 negate a sentencecorresponding 10 an Eng1ish~on. This is discussed in greater detail in theAppendix.
710nes &. Thomas (19n:320f). Payne (1985:224). There are IWo consonants whichdo not undergo lenition; IsI and /hl. Thus, in a sentence like Synnwn i ddim ('1 would not hesurprised'). ddim is the sole evidence of negalive contenL
238
• 8The initial consonant of the =ondary negative marker bas undergone soft mutation.The conditions whieh triggcr consocact mutation in Wclsh are a matter for spirite<! dchate in theliteraturc, although the argumccts for the triggcr being SCDSitive te syntactie facters as opposcdte word order alone appear te be convineing. Sec TaIlcrmac (19908) for discussion and reviewof previous proposais. The triggcricg of soft mutation on the negative marl:cr is discusscd insection 4.4.3.
9nere is tremeedous regiocaJ divcrsity with respect te negation of the verb bod ('tebe'), whethcr usee! as copula or auxiliary. Standard LW: nid yw Pam yn y gwailh (neg-is Pamprog worlc: Pam is nol worldng) vs. Northem (tydi Pam ddim yn y gwairh) vs. Southwest(smolsimo Pam yn y gwairh) vs. Westcre (Mg yw Pam yn y gwairh) vs. Southem (dyw Pamddim yn y gwailh).
I0Compare Ibis Ilegate<! cleft wilb the equivalect in LW, discusscd in Chapter 2,which requires the negative partiele nard): Nid John 1IIld oedd yn help". The remnact of nard) (d) may show up in CW, allbough Jones and Thomas (1977:325) state that the more typicalpattern is lbe occurrence of medial dim alone Ilegating lbe clause.
l1ln this section data are from Jones & Thomas (1977: 322ft). Lexical insertion ofthis item in Ilegate<! sentences is a rohust feature of CW, as IlOte<! by Sadler (1988), Williams(1980:115), and Awbcry (1990, 1991), and Hecdricl: (1988).
12Although Rouveret (1991) mentions the possibility ofgeccrating dim in speclNegP,he acaIyzes Ibis marlcer as gecerated adjoined te the higher VP projection. There are severa!lbeory-intercaJ reasons for rejecting the Spec/NegP acaIysis, lbe first bcicg that givec thesimilarities betweec the Wclsh data and the Russian facts, there is evidecce that the specifier ofNegP is available for SpeclHead Case-licecsicg. Sec the Appecdix te this Dissertation forfurther discussioll. Note that givec that NegP is IlOt gecerated in [-tiIlite] clauses, it is Ilotpossible te derive lbe base positiOIl of dim by comparing its positiOIl relative te [+tecse] and [tecse] verbs, as Pollock (1989) proposes for bis acaIysis ofFrecch llegatiOIl.
13nese arguments aIso bold for LW, discusscd in Chapter 2. While democstratinglbe depecdecce of NegP 011 TP, 1 malee 110 claims as te what drives this depecdecce. The claimmade by Zacuttini that T, in a sense, subcategorlzes for NegP is somewhat bizarre in the sensethat Ibis cac involve a lower bead subcategorizicg for a higber bead. Zacuttini aIso notes in berdissertation (1991) that the notion of subcategorization becomes somewhat obscure wbec appliedte functiocaJ beads.
14Data in Ibis section are takec from Borsley (1984:293).
ISNote that in the data in the sectiOIl covcricg negation of past participles theprepositiOIl a does IlOt appear. That data is takec from informant worlc, and the particle wasdropped.
16ln a taII: givec at Université de Québec l Montréal in 1991, Zacuttini suggestedthat while the higher negatiOll found in the first sentence is a funetional projection NegP, the10wer negatiOll is lexical; an adverb. This differecce is reflected in COIltraction possibilities; thehigber negative clement cac be COIltraeted but the lower CBIIIlOt: Mary hasn't always paid taus,*Mary has alwaysn 'r paid taus. However, in Zacuttini (1992), she acaIyzes bolb the higher andlower negative marlcers as NegPs.
239
• 17The form ni(d) occurs on abselutives, bul these are in.<tancos of conslituenlnegation. nol sentential negation. Thus, if the pre-sentenlial negalive marker is use<! (i.e. nidarol cyrraedd yn h"Y"•••. ). il means Il wasn'l afta arrhing lau rhal... (i.e. il was some othertime).
18See Zanuttini (1990:6-7. 1991) for a discussion ofthose fiu:l<.
19ne use of!his vern ta negate imperatives in CW is aise noted by Jones & Thomas(1977:348).
2~orn suggests that this constrainl may he pragmatic in nature. hasing his argumenlon possible dangers associated with post-vetbal negation in negative imperatives. An examplewould he ·Jump•..••norl·. While perbaps appea1ing al an intuitive leve!. il is bard ta """,ncile!his suggestion with the ltalian data. where the constraint operates only on true (uninflected)imperative forms.
21Ta1Ierman glosses mo'r as NEG-the. but mentions!hat 'mo is a contaction of dim 0
(NEG-P). se 1 have glossed it as such.
22Hence. subject agreement is found in negated relative clauses in CW only if thesubject itself is not relativized.
23See Harlow (1981) for discussion.
24ne not unexpected difference between pronominal and non-pronominal NPs innegated sentences in CW is that only the former trigger agreement on the preposition.Case-checlcing of pronomina1s in the specifier of the projection headed by 0 is an S-structurephenomenon; Case-checlcing of non-pronominals in !his position occurs at LF. Nole thal thedaim that these arguments are generated as sisters ta F rather !han V in negated structures mayhave non-trivial consequences for the Uniformity of Thematic Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH:Baker 1988). and may require revision. See fn. S. Chapler 3.
2SVaIois & Dupuis (1989) argue against the Casc-assigning ability of vetb-traees. aposition incompatible with the approach taken bere. They do. bowcvcr. suggcst a possiblercvision to the constraint in vicw of VSO languages, such that only the lowcst vcro-uacc isincapable ofassigning Case. This vicw is compabole with my elaim that the vcro-uacc in Deltabas this capability.
26NOle that, for the CW data. the constraint could altemativcly he formulated as anadjaceney condition (expressed in structural terms). as dim is the only lexical item thatpotentia1ly intervencs between Delta and specNP. Au!hier (1991:726-7) proposes that theadjacency condition on Case assignment in Eng1ish he captured structurally as follows: '[•••) Vassigns ACC Case only ta a sister with which it is in a stri~t (first branching node) C-commandrelation.' Sadlcr (1988:245 fn. 6) also suggeslS that preposition insertion in negated sentences inCW should he analyzed in terms of Case thenry. as docs Hendrick (1988).
27As an alternative ta the treatment of dim wc propose hcre. one could maintain thatit is its ro1e as a doser potential antecedent goveroor that is the cruc:ial property affectingCasc-licensing in CW ncgated clauscs. Anticipating our discussion of Pemhrokcshire Wclsh. itcould he claimed that the presence of dim b10cks LF movemcnt of a VSO direct object ta
240
•
•
•
SJ"'C/NegP for Case-chocking. The lrac<: in VP would nol b<: anloc<:denl govem<:d. forcing theappearmce of the dummy Case a.........ih"l1Cr o. However, this would rt:Sult in incorrect p~ictions.
SJ"'Cifically. LF movem<:nl 10 SJ"'C/NegP is p<:rmitl<:d for NPs (in facto it is obligatory for[-definit<:) NPs which cannol b<: ea.",·li=s<:d in SJ"'C/FP). It is bard to """ how an analysis ofdim as a pott:ntial barric:r to antt:Ceddlt govemmc::nt could he:: made sensitive to the specificationfor the f""lure [definilei. An analysis whereby dim inlerferes only with ea.",-assil,'llm<:nt undergovemment is then::fore preferJ.ble.
28The particJe dim which acts as a negative intc:nsifier in LW is pennitted in personalpassives (Chafodd mach ddim o'u /lad yma [NEG-got-3sg pigs NEG of-3pl kill here] Pigsweren't kill<:d here) but not imp<:rsonal passive structures (Ni /addwyd mach yma [NEG kilI<:dimp<:rsonal pigs here] Pigs wer<:n't kill<:d here. (Sadler 1988:230). a fact that is otherwiseanomalous. but might b<: amonable 10 a ea.'i<:-driv<:n <:xplanation.
29While th= facts are suggestive of English of-insertion. an analysis along the linesof Chomsky (l986a) is problematic. given the framcwork WC assume here. Chomsky analyzesthe p=c<: of of in sentencos like Kim's ~nry of Jean (cf. "Kim 's ~nry J~an) as a ref1<:x ofinher<:nt Case-assignment by the noun. Given that a in CW always prce<:des the direct objoct ofthe verb, the CW paradigm is consistent with the claim that a l<:xical it<:m cao ooly assigninher<:nt ea..., if it thela-marks an NP. but encounlers problems in other ""'l'OCts. If we retreatfrom the position that the verh combines with Neg in the synlall. and claim instead that verbs arcgeneral<:d in the l<:xicon as morphologically negative. we could in principle claim that a negatedverh assigns inherent Genitive Case to its objoct. We could maintain further that Ibis is ref10ctedin Genitive Case marking on the objoct in Russian. and in the presence of a preceding the objoctin CW. The first problem encountercd is accounting for Accusative ea..., assignment in negaledsenl<:nces in Russian and negative sentencos without a in CW (discussed in the next soction).How are the direct objects assign<:d Case in these scntencos? If wc app<:al to a functionalprojoction aldn 10 the propos<:d FP for Case-licensing when inh=t Case-assignment does nottake plac<:, then we arc left with the problem an apparent sensitivity to definileness and thelriggering of agreement on O. Giv<:n that agreement ref10cts Case-cbocking in a SpocIHeadconfiguration. agreement on a is incompatible with Case assignment under govemment.
30rhe fact that FP is base-generaled in distinct positions in Russian and CW is anundesirable feature of this llIll!lysis. A possible resolution would involve maintaining that FP inRlLo;sian is aise generaled in complement of V position, and forœ F-to-V raising ta facilitateCase-licensing, but certain problems arc associated with sucb a claim. Seo Cbapler 3. fn. 18.
31While this analysis accounts for the lack of LF Case-cbecking of pronominals in.l""'fNegP. still unexplained is why pronominal NPs in CW do not bave the option available inLW of crcating an A-<:hain at S-structure, headed by a pl""nastic in spocINegP. and triggeringagreem<:nt on the head of NegP. While this inability is not surprising. given the rcduced staNsof the negative head in combination with the availability of a Case-cbocking position lower thanthe ."Ubjoct NP. this analysis as it stands does not provide a principJ<:d means ofruling it out.
32Nolc !hat if the CAR constrains not only agreemcnt rca1ization but wherc in a ehainCasc-chccking accu"," [+dctinite] NPs arc prcdietcd to rcquirc o. as Ibis rcprcscnts a lowcrSpcclHcad configuration for thc direct abject !han spcc/NcgP. Howcvcr. maintaining CAR forCasc-chocking is impossiblc givcn thc claimcd optionality ofo.
241
• 33Awhery CllÛms lhat pronominal 'subject' NP. differ from non-pronominal NPs.whether definite or indefinite. in lhat they must precede dim. However. since the pronominalNPs in the examples sbe CileS are aIl ageotive. !his word order is expected. since they would hebase-generated in speclDeItaP. above dim. Accordingly. we will not discuss them here.
34Note that Awbery glosses wedi as 'afler'. as traditiona1 grammars do. We willmaintain her glosses hore. but we follow Sadler (1988) in treating !his element as a perfectivemarker.
35The descriptive statement that indefinite NPs following dim cannot he preceded bythe preposition is made by Awbery; however. as her data is based on spontaneous speech rather!han grammaticaIity judgements. her data include only possible sentences. not ungrammatica1ones. Accordingly. 1 have inserted the asterisks te mark the unacceptability of 0 te clarify theexamples.
36What is particularly surprising about these data is lhat they suggestlhat NP-raisingOCClUS in the syntax. The claim that an NP may raise in the synlaX but not te its ultimate Caseposition is problematic for the principle of economy. One stage in the movement from within VPte SpecfIl' is completed al S-structure. the next stage at LF. Th.... is no apparent reason for !hismovement heing broken up inte IWO distinct levels of the grammar. as opposed 10 taking placeentirely al LF. CIearly. !his paradigm requires more extensive investigation. Furtber. whileDoting these facts for the interested reader in the context of an NP-movement ana1ysis. it is notinconceivable lhat the data are in fact demonstrating IWo possible positions for dim placement. Ifthis approach is taken. the difficulty would he in making !his optiona1ity sensitive 10 the notionof (in)definiteness. Sec Rouveret (1991) for an alternative ana1ysis of these facts.
242
•
•
•
S. CONCLUSION
The objective of this dissertation is to broaden and sharpen our
understanding of the syntactic nature of sentential negation. To this end, r
undertook a close examination of changes in Case-marking, agreement and word
order that appear to be triggered by negation in Literary Welsh, Colloquial Welsh
and Russian. The proposai that the inventory of functional projections available
cross-linguistically includes a NegP was adopted as a starting point for the
investigation.
In Literary We1sh, the initial paradigm investigated was the interaction
between negation and changes in relative clause formation. Previous researchers
had noted that subject and direct object relativization out of negated relative
clauses appeared to force a different choice of complementizer and distinct
agreement patterns. By positing that sentential negation generates a NegP whose
head interferes with V-raising and whose specifier provides a Case coilfiguration
for A-chains, we were able to account for a wide array of data, induding
agreement patterns, the possibility of an in situ pronominal in relativization
constructions, and VSO direct object agreement surfacing on the head of NegP
itself. In that section, the framework of c1aims and assumptions led us to propose
that the head ofNegP can Case-Iïcense an NP in its specifier independently of V
movement into Neg.
In the context of these daims, modifications to the analysis of relative
clause formation in Welsh have been proposed. By modifYing the treatment of
agreement in Welsh, we were able to do away with the traditional analysis that
distinguishes relativization of subjects and VSO direct objects from ail other cases
of relativization as a movement strategy as opposed to a resumptive pronoun
243
•
•
•
strategy. In trus way, we were able to propose a non-movement analysis for
relativization out of complex NPs, out of PPs headed by non-inflecting
prepositions, and for direct object relativization in negated clauses, ail of wruch
differ from both direct and indirect cases in permitting an in situ pronominal.
The proposai that the head of NegP can Case-license an NP in its specifier
found additional support in our investigation of the Genitive of Negation
construction in Russian. We saw that the Genitive ofNegation, wruch we analyzed
as subject to Case-checking in specINegP, appears in sentences traditionally
analyzed as lacking Accusative Case assignment: unaccusative and passive
constructions. T1ùs supported the c1aim that the Case-licensing ability ofNeg is not
sirnply an a1tered version of the verb's Case-assigning ability, but is rather a
property ofNeg itselfin these languages.
We argued further that the presence of NegP in Russian interferes with
Case assignment under govemment to VSO direct objects. This was related to the
lower base-position posited for Russian: irnmediately below DeltaP rather than
irnmediately above TP. The base position ofNegP proposed for Russian accounted
for the apparent sensitivity of the Genitive of Negation to thematic roles,
specifica1Iy the inability of agentive NPs to surface with Genitive Case in negated
clauses.
The lack of interference with V-raising found in Russian negated clauses
was related to the morphologica\ly dependent status of the head of NegP. Vero
movement into Neg was analyzed as an obligatory instance of substitution, wruch
does not block further raising to T.
The chapter on Colloquial Welsh offered a bridge between the analyses of
LW and Russian. Thus, as proposed for LW, we maintained that NegP in CW is
244
•
•
•
gcncratcd above TP, but like Russian. the head of NegP in CW is a
morphologically dcpendent item which does not interfere with V-raising. In this
way, an account was provided for both the similarities and the differences between
relative clause formation in negated clauses in LW and CW.
However, as argued for Russian, the presence of sentential negation in CW
intcrferes with the verb's ability to assign Case under govemment. This was related
to the prescnce of the secondary negative marker required in CW. It was proposed
that this secondary negative marker is a potential Case-assignee, that blocks Case
assignment to a direct object NP lower in the structure.
Furthermore, we showed that the presence ofNegP in CW is dependent on
the presence ofTP, as claimed by Zanuttini (1990) for Italian.
The definiteness effects found in both Russian and CW negative clauses
were relatcd to the additional functional projection (FP) required to replace Case
assignment under govemment, which is blocked in negated sentences in these
languages. The potential Case-checking position provided by the specifier of FP
was characterized as available only to [+definite] NPs. Based on the interpretation
ofGenitive NPs vs. Nominative or Accusative-marked NPs in negated sentences in
Russian. as weil as the option of dropping the lexical item 0 which otherwise is
required as a Case-assigner for VSO direct obejcts in CW, we proposed that in
these languages [-definite] direct object NPs are forced to be Case-checked higher
in the structure, in specINegP.
Our analysis of Russian aise provided an explanation for the asymmetric
interpretation ofNominative and Accusative NPs in negated clauses; an asymmctry
that is not adressed by Pesetsk..y (1982). Only Accusative NPs have a restricted
[+definite] reading, because only spec/FP is restricted to [+definite] NPs.
245
•
•
•
In the analysis of the dialect of Russian discussed by PesetsJ,.-y (1982), il
was proposed that Case-checking in specINegP is subjecl 10 an addilional
restriction; only an NP that has copied its referenlial index as a selection index onto
the negative operator can be Case-checked in specINegP. Following Heim (1982),
we maintained that only [-definite] NPs are subject to Quantifier indexing, thus
accounting for the necessarily [-definite] re::ding of these NPs in the dialect
discussed by Pesetsky.
This investigation into the syntactic nature of sentential negation in LW,
Russian, and CW supports sorne daims that have been made about the properties
of NegP in other languages. As argued by Pollock (1989) and Choms\...-y (1989),
we found that the head of NegP can interfere with XC-raisins. by crealing a
rninimality barrier. Our analysis also supports the daim made by Ouhalla (1990)
and by Zanuttini (1990), and assumed in severa! other papers, that the base
position ofNegP is subject to cross-Iinguistic variation. Our work on Russian and
Welsh supports their proposais that NegP can be generated either above TP or
aboveVP.
246
• APPENDIX: NEGATION AS HEAD AND SPECIFIER OF NEGP
In this section, we explore a treatment of sentential negation in CW that
posits a lower base-position for NegP and generates dim in spec/NegP. We will
see that while this treatment of NegP provides an interesting explanation for the
required secondary negation marker in CW, the interactions between negation,
Case, and definiteness are problematic.
If, following Pollock's (1989) treatment of sentential negation in French,
we generate dim in the specifier and ni(d) in the head of NegP, we must account
for surface order of the negative constituents. This could be achieved by
appealing to the reduced status of the head 0= NegP in CW. If it is analyzed as a
c1itic, it is arguably subject to obligatory raising to a higher functional head at
S-structure. Given that the element in specifier position, dim, does not undergo
raising, we can appeal to its S-structure position to determine a base position for
NegP which is be10w De1taP. This is illustrated in (i).
lil
Neg
'"!t!
I--I-·--~
•dyw Sion ddim yn
V NP1 1
canu "God Save the Queen"
247
•
•
(ii) Dyw Sion ddim yn canu "Gad Save the Queen".Neg-is John Neg PROG sing "Gad Save the Queen"John isn 'c singing "God save che Queen".
CW ne6ation patterns with French in requiring the presence of a
secondary negation marker. 1 Just as in French, a negative adverb (bych or
erioed in Welsh) can appear in the place of the standard marker dim, satisfying
this requirement.:
(iii) FRENCH:
Je n'ai {pas/jamais} vu Marie.I Neg-have-lsg Neg seen Mary1have {noc/never)seen Mary.
*Je n'ai vu Marie.
I Neg-have-lsg seen Marie
(iv) COLLOQUIAL WELSH:
'Dyw Sion {ddimlbyth} yn palu'r ardd.Neg-is John Neg/never PROG dig-the gardenJohn did noc dig/never dug lhe garden.
*'dyw Sion yn palu'r arddNeg-is John PROG dig the garden
When these elements do not appear in the position otherwise taken by
dim, they appear in S-final position. When they appear in a negated sentence
when dim is present, they appear S-finally, and contribute no additional negative
force to the sentence. This is illustrated in (v).
(v) 'Dydy John ddim wedi nofio yn y mor erioed.Neg-is John Neg PERF swim in the sea everJohn has never swwn in lhe sea. [Lit: John has noc swwn in lhesea ever]
248
•
•
•
To account for these facts, we can appeaJ to sorne recent work by
Haegeman (1991) on sentential negation in West Flemish. Haegeman maintains
that if the secondary negative marker found in West Flemish, which she terms
suppon negarion, is not generated in spec/NegP, it must move there, either at
S-structure or at LF. This movement is driven by the Neg-Crîrerîon, which
Haegeman bases on Rizzi's (1991) wh-Crîrerîon.
(vi) Neg-Criterion: (Haegeman 1991:9)A Neg operator must be in a Spec/Head configuration with anX°[Neg).An X°[Neg) must be in a Spec/Head configuration with a Negoperator.
Let us maintain that the Neg-criterion is operative at S-structure in
Colloquial Welsh. This will account for the obligatory nature of secondary
negation. The Neg-criterion requires that the head of NegP be in a SpeclHead
configuration with a negative operator at S-structure. This requirement is
satisfied by the presence of dim, base-generated in speclNegP. If dim is not
base-generated, a negative adverb must move 10 speclNegP at S-structure in
order to satisfy the requirement.
(vii) ·'Dydy John wedi nofio yn y mor erioed.Neg-is John PERF swim in the sea everJohn has never swum in the sea.
However, given that this thesis is primari1y concerned with secondary
sentence modifications triggered by sentential negation, specifically those
relating to Case and agreement, we must determine whether such a treatment of
sentential negation in CW can account for these facts as well.
Consider first those ways in which CW negated relative clauses differ
from the LW constructions. Recall that subject relativization in CW exhibits the
so-called 'direct pattern' of agreement. Given that the 10wer NegP will not
intervene between T and C, the direct pattern found in negated clauses is
successfully derived for subject relativization.
249
•
•
•
The analysis must also account for the resumptive strategy found with
direct object relativization out of a negated clause. If we analyze the secondary
negation marker in Welsh as a potcntial A'-antecedent (in conjunction with a
c1aim that the verb-trace cannot satisfy the ECP by theta-government), we can
block wh-movement from direct object position in negated clauses by appealing
to the ECP; its trace in VP would not be properly governed.
However, by appealing to the barrier status of dim to block wh
movement of VSO direct objects in CW, we would lose a parallel account of the
resumptive pronoun strategy exhibited in VSO direct object relativization in
LW. In the analysis proposed in this thesis. the resumptive strategy is forced in
both LW and CW by the A-position of the object provided by NegP bcing
higher than the A-position of the subject.
Regarding the definiteness effects discussed in this chapter, an analysis
whp.re dim is generated in spec/NegP also encounters difficulties. It could still
be argued that the dummy Case-marker in CW is driven by the presence of dim
in spec/NegP (a position no longer available for Case-Iicensing). In order to
account for sentences where 0 does not appear, one could maintain (following
Belletti 1988) that verbs have an inherent Case to assign (which she terms
panitive Case), but this Case is constrained to [-definite) NPs. Accordingly, we
could conclude that the dummy Case assigner is not found with [-definite) NPs
because they cao receive inherent Case from the verb.
Such an analysis, extended to the Russian facts, encounters problems.
The Genitive Case option exists for all NPs regardless of their specification for
the feature [definite) (as evidenced by its appearance on pronominal and
demonstrative NPs, as well as on proper names). As it is the Accusative option
which is restricted in terms of definiteness; and the restriction is to [+definite),
not [-definite) NPs), we would be forced to c1aim that inherent Case à la Belletti
(reflected in Genitive Case marking) is unrestricted. Such an extension of
Belletti's analysis would result in a criticalloss of explanlltory power.
Similarly, the CW facts do not fit neatly into Belletti's analysis. The
dummy Case marker should be obligalOry for [+definite) NPs, given the
unavailability of Partitive Case. As we have secn, this is not correct; [+definite)
NPs in CW, as in Russian, exhibit an optionality not in keeping with the
restrictions associated with inherent Partitive Case assignment.
250
•
•
Thus, given the focus of this investigation and the results obtained in the
investigations of LW and Russian, the proposa! that dim is generated in
speclNegP in CW does not appear to be correct.
tThis leaves aside the issues raised by sentences in French where only the initialnegative ma:ker occurs, as in j" Il<! douz" qu'il vi"ndra. Tbese sentences cac he argued tainclude a negative force elsewhere, as in the doubt expressed by the main verb.
2The adverbs byth and aio<!d bave the same meaning, but are in complementarydistribution. Byth is restricted ta [·PERF] and aio<!d ta [+PERF) clauses. See Jones & Thomas(1977:322-331) for discussion. Nole lbat since these items are restricted ta perfect've andprogressive (bence periphrastic) sentences, the issue of preposition insertion does not arise.Such COnstruCtiODS bave a [-finile) verb which remains in ilS base position and Case-licenses anNP in ilS specifier. Thus, direct objeclS in these CODSIrUCtiODS do Dol rely on Case bygovemmenl, which is blocked by the presence of secondary negation•
251
•
•
•
REFERENCES
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Senrential Aspects. Ph.D.Dissertation, MIT.
Academy of Sciences ofthe USSR, 1980. Russkaja Grammatika Tom II:Sinraksis. Nauka: Moscow.
Aoun, J. 1981. ECP, Move-a, and Subjacency. Linguistic Inquiry 12.4.
Autlùer, J.M. 1991. V-Govemed Expletives, Case-Theory, and the ProjectionPrinciple. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 721-740.
Awbery, G.W. 1976. A Transformationai View ofWelsh Relative Clauses. TheBulletin ofthe Board ofCeltic Studies 27, 155-206.
__....:. 1977. The Syntax ofWelsh: A Transformational Study ofthe Passive.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
__....:. 1988. Pembrokeslùre Negatives. The Bulletin ofthe Board ofCelticSrudies 35, 37-49.
__....:. 1990. Diaiect Syntax: A Neglected Resource for Welsh. in R. Hendrick(ed.) The Syntax ofthe Modem Celtic Languages. Syntax and SemallticsVol. 23. Academie Press: New York.
Babby, L.H. 1975. Impersonai Verbs and their Lexical Specification. Slavic andEast European Jouma119, 182-187.
__....:. 1980. Existenrial Sentences andNegation in Russian. Karoma: AnnArbor.
Baker, C.L. 1991. The Syntax ofEngiish Not: The Limits ofCore Grammar.Linguistic Inquiry 22, 387-429.
Baker, M. 1985. The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373-415.
___. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory ofGrammatical Function Changing.University (IfClùcago Press: Clùcago.
Baker, M. and K Hale 1990. Relativized Minimality and Pronoun Incorporation.Linguistic Inquiry 21, 289-297.
BalI, M.J.(ed.) 1988. The Use ofWelsh: A Contribution to Sociolinguistics,Multilingual Matters Ltd.:Clevedon.
BaIl, M.J. and N. Müller 1992. Mutation in Welsh. Routiedge: New York.
252
•
•
•
Barwise, 1. and R. Cooper 1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language.Linguistics andPhilosophy 4, 159-219.
Belletti, A. 1988. The Case ofUnaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1-35.
___. 1990. Generali;ed Verb Movement: Aspects ofVerb Syntax. Rosenberg& Sellier: Torino.
Borsley, R. 1984. VP Complements: Evidence from Welsh. Journal ofLinguistics20, 277-302.
___" 1987. A Note on Traditional Treatments ofWeIsh. Journal ofLinguistics23, 185-190.
Borsley, R. and 1. Stephens 1989. Agreement and the Position ofSubjeets inBreton. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 7,407-427.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Reidel: Dordrecht.
Campana, M. 1992. A Movement Theory ofErgativity. Ph.D. Dissertation, McGilIUlÙversity.
Chomsk.")', N. 1981. Lectures on Government andBinding. Foris: Dordrecht.
. 1982. Sorne Concepts and Consequences ofthe Theory ofGovemment--- and Binding. Linguistie Inquiry Monograph 6. MIT Press: Cambridge,
Mass.
___. 1986a. Barriers. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
__. 1986b. Knowledge ofLanguage: Ils Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger:New York.
___. 1989. Sorne Notes on Economy ofDerivation and Representation. MITWorking Papers in Linguistics 10, 43-75.
__. 1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT OccasionalPapers in Linguistics 1.
Chvany, C.V. 1975. On the Syntax ofBe-Sentences in Russian. Siavica Publishers:Cambridge.
. 1983. On 'Defirùteness' in Bulgarian, English, and Russian. American--- Contributions to the IXInternational Congress ofSlavists. Slavica
Publishers: Cambridge.
de Freitas, L. to appear. Case-Licensing in Specifier ofNegP: The Case ofRussian. Proceedings ofthe SecondAnnual Workshop on LexicalSemantie Relations, February 1992, McGilI UlÙversity, Montréal.
253
•
•
. in press. Case-Licensing and (In)definiteness in Russian and Welsh.--- Proceedings of the Colloque Internationale sur La Négation, November
1992, Université de Paris X, Nanterre.
de Freitas, 1. and M. Noonan 1993. Head Movement, Agreement and Negation inWelsh Relatives. In L. Dobrin (ed.) Proceedings ofthe 27th RegionalMeeting ofthe Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Negation.University ofChicago Press: Chicago.
de Freitas, 1., M. Noonan and B. Shaer. 1991. Ignore-a as a Principle ofEconomy. Ms., McGil1 University.
Di Sciul1o, AM. and E. Williams 1987. On the Definition ofWard, MIT Press:Cambridge, Mass.
Enç, M. 1991. The Semantics ofSpecificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.
Evans, O.S. 1964. A GrammarofMiddle Welsh. Institute for Advanced Studies:Dublin.
Fife, J. 1986. Additional Faets about Welsh VPs. Journal ofLinguistics 22, 179186.
Haegeman, L. 1991. Negative Concord, Negative Heads. Ms. Université deGenève.
Haegeman, L. and R Zanuttini 1991. Negative Heads and the Neg Criterion. TheLinguistie Review 8, 233-251.
Haïk, 1. 1981. On Clitic en in French. Journal ofLinguistic Research 2.
Harlow, S. 1981. Government and Relativization in Celtic. In F. Heny (ed.)Binding andFiItering. Croom Helm: London.
__.. 1983. CelticRelatives. YorkPapersin Linguistics 10, 72-121.
__.. 1989. The Syntax ofWelsh Soft Mutation. Natural Language andLinguistie Theory7, 289-316.
Heim, 1. 1982. The Semantics ofDefinite andIndefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D.Dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.
Hendrick, R 1988. Anaphora in Cellie and Universal Grammar. KluwerAcademie Publishers: Dordrecht.
Hirschbüh1er, P. and M. Labelle 1992. L'évolution des propositions infinitivesnégatives en 1hmçais. Ms., Université d'Ottawa et Université du Québec àMontréal.
Horn, LoR 1989. A NaturaI History afNegalion. The University ofChicago Press:Chicago.
2S4
•
•
Iatridou, S. 1990. About Agr(P). LinguisticInquiry 21, 551-577.
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. AF. Host:Copenhagen.
Johnson, K. 1990. Object Positions. Ms., University ofWisconsin, Madison.
Jones, D.G. 1988. literaI)' WeIsh. In M.J. BalI (ed.) The Use ofWelsh: AContribution to Sociolinguistics. Muitilingual Matters Ltd: CIevedon.
Jones, M. and AR Thomas 1977. nIe Welsh Language: Studies in its Syntax andSemantics. University ofWales Press: Cardiff.
Kayne, R 1984. Connectedness andBinary Branching. Foris: Dordrecht.
___" 1991. Romance Clitics, Verb-Movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22,647-686.
Kitagawa, Y. 1986. Subjects in Japanese andEnglish. Ph.D. Dissertation,University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.
KIima, E. 1964. Negation in English. In J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.) The StructureofLanguage. Prentice-Hall: Engiewood CIiffs, N.J.
Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche. 1988. Subjects. Ms., UCLA
Laka, 1. 1989. Constraints on Sentential Negation: The Case ofBasque. MITWorking Papers in Linguistics 10, 199-216.
___.1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature ofFunctionaI Categories andProjections. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Larson, R 1987. On the Double-Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3,335-391.
__.1990. Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry21,589-632
Lasnik, H. 1990. Case and Expletives: Notes Towards a Parametric Account. Ms.University ofConnecticut.
Li, Y. 1990. XO-Binding and Verb-Incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21,399-426.
Liberman, M. 1974. On Conditioning the Rule ofSubject AUX Inversion. NELS5,77-91.
Libert, A 1992. On the Distinction between Syntactic and Sernantic Case. Ph.D.Dissertation, McGil! University.
Macana, P. 1975. Notes on the Affixed Pronouns in Welsh. Studio CelticaX, 318325.
2SS
•
•
•
___.. 1978. Notes on the Abnormal Sentence. Studia CeItiea XIll, 174-187.
Mahajan, A. 1990. The A/A'Distinction andMO~'emelltTheory. Ph.D.Dissertation, MIT.
May, R 1977. The Grammar ofQuantification. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
McCloskey, J. 1978. A Fragment ofa Grammar ofModem Irish. Texas LinguistieForum 12. University ofTexas, Austin.
. 1983. A VP in a VSO Language. In Gazdar, G. E Klein l1Ild G.K. Pullum---' (eds.) Order, Concord & Constituency. Foris Publications: Dordrecht.
___. 1990. Resumptive Pronouns, A-Bar Binding and Levels ofRepresentationin Irish. In R Hendrick (ed.) The Syntax and Semantics ofthe ModemCeltie Languages. Academie Press: New York.
McCloskey, J. and K. Hale, 1984. On the Syntax ofPerson-Number Intlection inModem Irish. Natural Language and Linguistie Theory 1, 487-535.
Milsark, G. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Moritz, L. 1989. Aperçu de la syntaxe de la négation enfrançais. Mémoire deLicense, Université de Genève.
Morris-Jones, J. 1931. A Welsh Grammar, Historieal and Comparative. ClarendonPress: Oxford.
Neidle, C. 1988. The Role ofCase in Russian Syntax. Kluwer AcademiePublishers: Dordrecht.
Noonan, M. 1989. Operator Licencing and the Case ofFrench Interrogatives.Proceedings ofWCCFL 8.
__,.1991. Case at S-strueture in Irish: An analysis of Ta. Ms., McGiIlUniversity.
_---'.1992. Case and Syntactic Geometry. Ph.D. Dissertation, McGiIlUniversity.
Cuhalla, J. 1990. Sentential Ne~f.;jn, Re1ativizOO Minimality and the AspeetualStatus ofAuxiIÏl:.;es. The Linguistic Review 7, 183-231.
Payne, J.R 1985. Negation. In T. Shopen (00.) Language Typology and SyntacticDescriptions: Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Pearce, E. 1993. Tense and Negation: Competing Analyses in Middle French. In L.Dobrin (00.) Parasession on Negation: Proceedings ofthe 27th RegionalMeeting ofthe Chicago Linguistics Society.
Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
256
•
•
•
Pilch, H. 1971. A Syntaetic Study ofColloquial Welsh. Studia Celtica VI, 138157.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Granunar, and the Structure ofIP.Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.
Press, Ian. 1986. A Grammar ofModem Breton. Mouton de Gruyter: New York.
Progovaç, L. 1988. A Binding Approach to Po/arity Sensitivity. Ph.D.Dissertation, USC, Los Angeles.
___.. 1991. Subjunctive: Transparency ofFunctiona/ Categories. Ms., WayneState University.
___.. 1992. Subjunetive: Negative Polarity and Long-Distance Reflexives. Ms..Wayne State University.
Reuland, E.J. and AG.B. ter Meulen (eds.) 1989. The Representation of(In)definiteness. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
Riemsdijk, H. van. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Foris: Dordrecht.
Rizzi, L. 1986. Null Objects in Italian and the Theory ofpro. Linguistic Inquiry17, 507-557.
___.. 1990. Re/ativi::edMinima/ity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
__~. 1991. Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion. ms. Université deGenève.
Rizzi, L. and 1. Roberts, 1989. Complex Inversion in French. Probus l, 1-30.
Rochette, A 1988. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects ofRomance Sententia/Comp/ementation. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Ross, J.R. 1983. Inner Islands. Ms., MIT.
Rouveret, A 1990. X-bar theory, Minimality, and Barrierhood in Welsh. In R.Hendrick (ed.), Syntax andSemantics 23: The Syntax ofthe ModemCe/tic Languages. Academie Press: New York.
___" 1991. Functional Categories and Agreement. The Linguistic Review 8,353-387.
Sadler, L. 1988. We/sh Syntax: A Govemment-BindingApproach. Croom He1m:London.
Sadock, J. and A Zwicky 1985. Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax. In T. Shopen(ed.) Language Typo/ogy andSyntactic Description 1: Clause Structure.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
257
•
•
Safir, K. 1982. Syntaetie ChaÎlIS and the Dejil/itel/ess Effeet. Ph.D. Dissertation,MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
SelIs, P. 1983. Relative Clauses in Irish and Welsh, York Papas il/ Lil/guisties 10,159-172.
___.. 1984. Syntax and Semanties ofResumptive Prol/oulIS. Ph.D.Dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.
Slùonsh.')', U. 1992. Resumptive Pronouns as a Last Resort. Lil/guistie II/quiry 23,443-468.
Skerrelt, R.AQ. (1971) Statement, Command, Question, and Wish. Studia CelrieaVI, 158-162.
Sportiche, D. 1988. ConditiollS 01/ Si/el/t Categories. Ms., UCLA.
___. 1990. Movement, Agreement and Case. Ms., UCLA.
___. 1992. Clitics, Voice, and SpeclHead Licensing. GLOW Newsletter.
Sproat, R. 1985. Welsh Syntax and VSO Structure. NalUral Language andLinguistie Theory 3, 173-216.
Stump, G. T. 1989. Further Remarks on Breton Agreement. Natural Languageand Linguistie Theory 7, 429-471.
TalIennan, M. O. 1983. Island Constraints in Welsh. York Papers in Linguisties10, 197-204.
___.. 1990a. VSO Word Order and Consonant Mutation in Welsh. Linguisties28,389-416.
___.. 1990b. Relativization Strategies: NP Accessibility in Welsh. Journal ofLinguistics 26, 291-314.
___.. 1991. The Directionality ofthe Head Subcategorization in Welsh. In 1. Fifeand E. Poppe (eds.) Current Issues in Linguistie Theory 83: Studies inBrythonie Word Order.
Taraldsen, T. 1992. SubjectJVerb Agreement and Word Order in Celtic andRomance. NELS 23.
Timberlake, A 1975. Hierarchies in the Genitive ofNegation. Slavie andEastEuropean Journal 19, 123-38.
Travis, L. 1984. ParametersandEffeetsofWordOrder Variation. Ph.D.Dissertation, MIT.
_----'. 1991. Inner Aspect. NELS 22.
258
•
•
•
Valois, D. and F. Dupuis (1989). On the Status ofVerbal TrJces in French: theCase ofStylistic Inversion. Ms. University ofCalifomia (Los Angeles) &Université de Québec à Montréal.
Williams, S. 1. 1980. A Welsh Grammar. University ofWales Press: Cardiff.
Zanuttini, R. 1989. The Structure ofNegative Clauses in Romance. Ms., MIT,Cambridge, Mass.
___" 1990. On the Relevance ofTense for Sentential Negation, Ms. Universitéde Genève.
___.. 1991. Syntactic Properties ofSententiaI Negation: A Comparative StudyofRomance Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofPennsylvania.
Zwicky, A. 1984. WeIsh Soft Mutation and the Case ofObject NPs. Proceedingsofthe Chicago Linguistics Society 20,387-402.
259