Andrew Radford
(radford@essex.ac.uk)
1. Introduction
In
his (1999) paper Derivation by Phase,
Chomsky argues that expletive passive constructions in English (i.e. passives
with an expletive there subject) involve
obligatory leftward or rightward displacement of the direct object. He
maintains that the relevant displacement operations are phonological rather than syntactic
in nature, and discusses the criterial properties of phonological and syntactic
movement operations. In this paper, I challenge Chomsky’s view that the
relevant object-displacement operations are phonological in nature and argue
instead that neither construction involves any object-displacement operation. I
therefore conclude that there is no evidence (at least, from the kind of
structures discussed here) for weakening the theory of grammar by positing
phonological phrase-movement operations.
2. Ordinary and expletive
passives
English
has two different types of passive construction – ordinary passives like (1a)
below and expletive passives like (1b/c/d)[2]:
(1)(a) Several
large packages were placed on the table
(b)
There were several large packages
placed on the table
(c)
There were placed on the table several
large packages
(d)
*There were placed several large
packages on the table
Chomsky
(1999, p.20) claims that expletive passives like (1b) are ambiguous between a
verbal/dynamic passive interpretation (on which (1b) is roughly synonymous with
(1c)) and an adjectival/stative passive interpretation involving an
‘existential construction “there be NP”, where NP includes a reduced relative’
(on which (1b) would be paraphraseable as ‘There were several large packages
which were placed on the table’). He argues that an existential analysis is
appropriate for sentences like (2a) below, but not for those like (2b) (#
indicates anomaly):
(2)(a) #There are many cakes expected to be
baked in that oven
(b)
There are expected to be many cakes baked in that oven
Structures
like (2a), he maintains, have existential import: (2a) states that there are
many cakes such that they are expected to be baked in that oven, and is odd
because it presupposes that the cakes already exist prior to being baked in the
oven. By contrast, true expletive passive structures like (2b) have no
existential import (and so (2b) is not odd).
Moreover,
observes Chomsky (1999, p.20), the passive participle expression is an island for extraction in existential
structures (in the same way as relative clauses are), but not in expletive
passives: cf.
(3)(a) *Which oven are there many cakes expected
to be baked in?
(b)
Which oven are there expected to be many cakes baked in?
Chomsky
does not propose any specific analysis of existential passives, but rather
concentrates on expletive passives.
In
both ordinary passives like (1a) and expletive passives like (1b/c/d), Chomsky
posits that the italicised nominal several
large packages originates as a theta-marked direct object argument of the
passive participle placed. Some
apparent evidence in support of this claim comes from the fact that the direct
object in expletive passives can be an object idiom chunk, as we see from
sentences like:
(4)(a) There was umbrage taken at his remark
(b)
There was due homage paid to the former president
(c)
There were close tabs kept on the X-files by the FBI
(d)
There was little heed paid to his warning
If
(as is traditionally assumed) the italicised idiom chunk nominal can only serve
as the complement of the bold-printed verb[3],
it is plausible to suppose that it originates as the object of the bold-printed
passive participle such cases.
3. The derivation of
passives
Although
Chomsky makes no specific claim about the syntax of the direct object of place in sentences like (1), one
possibility consistent with the VP-shell analysis which he adopts (following
earlier work by Larson 1988, 1990 and Hale and Keyser 1991, 1993, 1994) is that
several large packages originates in
spec-VP, so that at the end of the vP cycle all four sentences in (1) would
have the structure (5) below[4],
if we assume that V raises to adjoin to the null light verb ø which heads vP[5]:
(5) [vP [v placed+ø] [VP several large
packages [V placed] on the table]]
Merging
the Tense auxiliary be with the
resulting vP in (5) will in turn derive[6]:
(6) [TP [T be] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP several
large packages [V placed] on the
table]]
The
finite tense-auxiliary be agrees in
person and number with (and assigns nominative case to) the closest nominal
which it c-commands, namely several large
packages: in consequence, be is
ultimately spelled out as the third person plural form were. T has an obligatory EPP feature which requires it to project
a specifier. In simple passives like (1a), the lexical array (i.e. the set of
items taken from the lexicon which are used to form the relevant structure)
contains no expletive and the EPP requirement of T is satisfied by moving the
direct object people into spec-TP to
become the subject of were, deriving[7]:
(7) [TP Several large packages [T were] [vP
[v placed+ø] [VP slp [V placed] on
the
table]]
The
resulting TP in (4) is then merged with a null declarative complementiser to
derive the CP structure associated with (1a) Several large packages were placed on the table.
In
the case of expletive passives like (1b/c/d), the lexical array contains
expletive there; merging this in
spec-TP in (6) will derive the structure (8) below:
(8) [TP There [T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP
several large packages [V placed]
on the
table]]
Expletive
there carries an uninterpretable
person feature which is erased via agreement with were. Subsequently merging (8) with a null declarative
complementiser will derive the CP structure associated with (1d) *There were placed several large packages on
the table. But the resulting sentence is ungrammatical. Why should this
be?
Chomsky
(1999, p. 15) observes that passive and unaccusative objects like those
italicised in (9) below cannot remain in situ in English:
(9)(a) *There were placed several large packages on the table (= 1d)
(b)
*There arrived several large
packages in the mail
He
concludes (1999, p.16) that ‘English bars surface structures of the form
[V-DO], where the construction is unaccusative/passive.’ (For succinctness,
this is referred to below as the V-DO
constraint.) Chomsky has little to
say about the nature of this constraint, other than noting that it must reflect
a parametrised property since there are languages like Italian and Dutch in
which the counterparts of sentences like (9a/b) are grammatical (i.e. languages
in which the V-DO constraint does not hold).
However,
Chomsky notes that structures like (9a) become grammatical in English if the
direct object is displaced leftwards as in (10a) below (repeated from (1b)
above) or rightwards as in (10b) (repeated from (1c) above):
(10)(a) There were several large packages placed on the table
(b)
There were placed on the table several
large packages
He
refers to the relevant leftward displacement operation as Thematization/TH and to its rightward counterpart as Extraction/EX. He hypothesises (1999,
p.18) that leftward-moved thematized objects move to spec-vP and that
rightward-moved extracted objects adjoin to vP: in consequence of the V-DO
constraint, an expletive passive direct object must obligatorily undergo either
Thematization or Extraction.
A
key postulate of Chomsky’s analysis of expletive passive object displacement is
that both Extraction and Thematization are phonological
rather than syntactic movement
operations. The two types of movement operation have in common the fact that
they both leave behind a trace which is phonologically null, though differ in
that phonological traces are given a null spellout at the point where
phonological displacement applies, whereas syntactic traces are given a null
spellout at the end of the relevant phase. Moreover, the moved constituent is
visible at both the LF and the PF interfaces in the case of syntactic movement,
but is visible only at the PF interface in the case of phonological movement:
from this is follows that syntactic movement operations may have semantic
effects (e.g. a moved DP may be interpreted as specific/definite), but
phonological movement operations may not. Further differences which Chomsky
postulates include the fact that phonological displacement operations apply to
the output of syntactic movement operations (but not conversely), and that
syntactic (but not phonological) movement operations can be iterated (i.e. can
apply in a successive-cyclic fashion).
Given
these (and earlier) assumptions, (10a) There
were several large packages placed on the table and (10b) There were placed on the table several large
packages would have the common syntactic structure (11) below (if the verb placed remains in situ in the syntax[8]):
(11) [CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v ø]
[VP several large packages [V placed] on the
table]]]]
Movement
of the verb placed from V to adjoin
to the affixal light verb [v ø] in the PF component will derive (12)
below:
(12) [CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v
placed+ø] [VP several large packages
[V placed] on the table]]]]
However,
the resulting structure violates the V-DO constraint – as we see from the
ungrammaticality of (1d) *There were
placed several large packages on the table. Accordingly, in the PF
component the object several large
packages must obligatorily undergo either leftward Thematization (deriving
(13a) below), or rightward Extraction (deriving (13b) below)[9]:
(13)(a) [CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP several
large packages [v placed+ø] [VP slp [V placed]
on the table]]]]
(b) [CP [C ø] [TP There
[T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP slp [V placed] on the table]
several
large packages]]]
(11)
is the structure visible at the LF-interface, (13a/b) the structure visible at
the PF interface.
Chomsky
offers a number of arguments in support of his claim that Thematization and
Extraction are phonological operations. One type of argument which he adduces
is semantic in nature. He notes (1999, p.16) that Thematization/Extraction
differ from typical syntactic displacement rules ‘in not yielding the usual
surface-semantic effects (specificity, etc.)’: this would follow if principles
of LF-interpretation can only ‘see’ syntactic structures like (12) and not
phonological structures like (13a/b). Moreover, it would then follow that ‘The
English constructions reach LF in the same form as in similar languages, as we
would expect if LF-external systems of interpretation are essentially
language-independent and prefer the LF interface to be as uniform as possible
across languages’ (Chomsky, 1999, p. 16).
Chomsky
goes on to note that his analysis of Thematization and Extraction as
phonological operations correctly predicts that (in English expletive passives)
the whole direct object is inaccessible to syntactic movement operations like
wh-movement – as we see from the ungrammaticality of expletive passives such as[10]:
(14) *How
many packages were there placed on the table?
(14)
cannot be derive from a syntactic structure with an in situ direct object,
since (as (13) above shows) by the time wh-movement applies on the CP cycle,
the direct object will already have obligatorily undergone either Thematization
or Extraction in the phonological component on the vP cycle[11],
leaving behind a null trace which cannot undergo movement if ‘traces are
inaccessible to Move’ (Chomsky 1999, p.18). Nor can (14) be derived from phonological
structures like (13a/b), since phonological structures are inaccessible to
syntactic movement operations.
Chomsky
also argues that his analysis of Thematization and Extraposition as
phonological operations correctly predicts that no subpart of the direct object
can undergo syntactic movement. In this connection, consider the contrast below[12]:
(15)(a) ?How many people did they place pictures
of on the table?
(b)
*How many people were there pictures of placed on the table?
(c)
*How many people were there placed on the table pictures of?
The
slight awkwardness of sentences like (15a) may be ‘the result of incomplete
internal constituent constraints on movement (Kuno 1973)’ (Chomsky 1999, fn
41). However, (15b/c) are completely ungrammatical. This, Chomsky argues, is
because (15b/c) could only be derived by application of wh-movement to
phonological structures like (13a/b); but it is in the nature of phonological
movement operations that their output in inaccessible to syntactic movement
operations.
Chomsky
argues that Thematization and Extraction also differ from syntactic operations
in that they cannot be iterated (i.e. they cannot apply to their own output).
Data such as (16) below might be seen as providing empirical support for this
claim in relation to Thematization:
(16)(a) There had been umbrage taken at his remarks
(b)
*There had umbrage been taken
at his remarks
Chomsky
does not, however, explain why phonological movement operation should not be iterable,
simply noting (1999, p.19) that non-iterability is ‘perhaps a more general
property of operations not driven by uninterpretable features, and/or
phonological operations[13].’
As
should be apparent, Chomsky’s analysis of the syntax of expletive passive
direct objects in English is of considerable theoretical importance because it
leads him to the conclusion that natural language grammars incorporate both
syntactic and phonological XP-movement operations. However, from a conceptual
perspective, his postulation of phonological movement operations can be seen as
introducing an unwanted imperfection
into the theory of grammar. Within a perfect theory of grammar, we might
conjecture, the syntactic (i.e. computational) component of the grammar would
generate a single structural
representation which is visible at both the LF and the PF interfaces. However,
within the model outlined in Chomsky (1999), the syntactic component generates
a syntactic structure (visible only at the LF interface) which is mapped into a
distinct phonological structure (visible only at the PF interface). In other
words, Chomsky’s analysis in some ways marks a retreat to earlier two-level
models of syntax in which a distinction was drawn between deep structure/shallow structure and surface structure. Of
course, if (as claimed here) there are no phonological object displacement
operations in English expletive passives (and, perhaps more generally, no
phonological movement operations[14]),
we can maintain a single-level theory of structural representation. In the
sections which follow below, I argue against positing either of the
phonological object displacement operations which Chomsky postulates.
5. On the non-existence of
Extraction
There
are a number of theoretical and descriptive problems posed by Chomsky’s
analysis of clause-final objects in expletive passives like (1c) There were placed on the table several large
packages. One relates to the question of what drives (rightward) Extraction
of the object in such cases. The only answer which Chomsky offers to this
question (1999, p.18) is to suggest the possibility that ‘a weak phase has a
phonological counterpart to EPP’: in other words, the head light verb of a
passive vP may carry some kind of EPP-feature which triggers phonological movement.
But since a head H with an EPP feature typically triggers (leftward) movement
of a phrasal constituent to spec-HP[15],
it is not clear how an EPP-feature of a light verb v could drive (rightward) adjunction to vP.
What
makes Chomsky’s analysis even more problematic is the fact that he has to posit
that the clause-final direct object in sentences such as:
(17)(a) There are likely to be awarded several prizes
(b)
We expect there to be awarded several
prizes
undergoes
string-vacuous Extraction and is thereby adjoined to the righthand edge of vP.
Since movement is a prima facie imperfection
which is tolerated only to the extent that it resolves interface problems, the
question arises of what specific PF-interface problem vacuous Extraction in the
PF component is designed to resolve. Clearly, it cannot be linear ordering
problems, since Extraction in such cases does not change the linear order of
the overt constituents in (16).
Moreover,
Chomsky’s Extraction analysis violates Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom/LCA under which x precedes y iff x asymmetrically
c-commands
y. Chomsky (1995, 334-340) adopts LCA
(while modifying some of Kayne’s assumptions) and concludes that it follows
from LCA that in all structures in which an XP is adjoined to some target
constituent, ‘the adjunct precedes the target’. However, under Chomsky’s
analysis of Extraction, a clause-final direct object in an expletive passive
undergoes rightward adjunction to vP,
in violation of LCA.
Given
the problems posed by Chomsky’s Extraction
analysis, I shall explore an alternative analysis under which clause-final
expletive passive direct objects are in
situ constituents which undergo no movement operation of any kind. On this
view, the direct object several large packages
in a sentence like (1c) There were placed
on the table several large packages is merged as the complement of placed and the locative argument on the table as the specifier of placed, so that (1c) has the structure
(18) below[16]:
(18) [CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v
placed+ø] [VP on the table [V placed] several
large packages]]]]
The
object several large packages would
remain in situ. Since the analysis proposed here does not assume any rightward
movement, the need to attribute the non-iterability of rightward movement of
direct objects to a (somewhat mysterious) property of phonological operations
does not arise.
Moreover,
the analysis sketched here provides a straightforward account of the
ungrammaticality of sentences like (1d) *There
were placed several large packages on the table. This follows from the
assumption that direct objects are always merged (and theta-marked) in
VP-complement position. A sentence like (1d) would require a structure like
(19) below:
(19) [CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v
placed+ø] [VP several large packages
[V placed] on the
table]]]]
But
(19) would be ungrammatical by virtue of violating the requirement for direct
objects to be merged in VP-complement position. Thus, the analysis proposed
here obviates the need to posit a V-DO constraint which filters out
unaccusative or passive V-DO structures (a constraint which amounts to a return
to the kind of output filters
associated with Chomsky and Lasnik’s (1977) Filters
and Control paper – a device criticised in subsequent work for being
entirely ad hoc).
The
in situ analysis of expletive passive
direct objects would also enable us to avoid the need for positing vacuous
rightward movement of the direct object in sentences like:
(20) There were awarded several prizes
Under
the in situ analysis proposed here,
(20) would have the structure (21) below:
(21) [CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v
awarded+ø] [VP [V awarded] several
prizes]]]]
The
clause-final direct object several prizes
would originate in VP-complement position, in accordance with our earlier
assumption that direct objects always originate as the complement of V[17].
The object several prizes would not
undergo vacuous rightward movement, but rather would remain in situ in
VP-complement position.
Under
the in situ analysis of clause-final
expletive passive direct objects sketched in this section, the direct object is
first-merged as the ‘lowest’ argument of the verb. This in turn means that
other internal arguments of the verb will c-command the direct object. Some
evidence that this is indeed the case is provided by sentence such as (22)
below:
(22) There were shown to the blackmail victims
numerous compromising photos
of themselves
Under
the analysis proposed here, the italicised string in (22) will have the
syntactic structure indicated in (23) below[18]:
(23) [VP to the blackmail victims [V' [V
shown] numerous compromising photos of
themselves]]
and
the oblique argument to the blackmail
victims will c-command and hence be able to bind the reflexive themselves[19].
Further
evidence that oblique arguments originate ‘above’ direct objects come from
contrasts such as:
(24)(a) It was reported to the authorities that
several prisoners had escaped
(b)
*It was reported that several prisoners had escaped to the authorities
In
general, that-clause direct objects
typically remain in situ and do not move to some higher position within vP/VP
(arguably because they are case-resistant, as noted by Stowell 1981)[20].
If so, the fact that the that-clause
direct object in (24) must precede the indirect object to the authorities suggests that VP-complement position is the
canonical position for first-merge of direct objects[21].
It may be that an in situ direct object is typically assigned a specific type
of interpretation (e.g. as focused or new or contrastive), and that heavy objects are the optimal candidates
for the relevant interpretation, thereby accounting for the heaviness effect.
What
remains to be accounted for under the in
situ analysis proposed here are extraction facts. The grammaticality of
sentences such as:
(25) How many people were there arrested?
would
suggest that there is no constraint against the whole object undergoing a
syntactic displacement operation like wh-movement. Moving a subpart of the
object, however, yields ungrammaticality, as we saw earlier in relation to
(15)(c) above – repeated as (26) below:
(26) *How many people were there placed on the
table pictures of?
However,
we find a similar picture in relation to in situ object complements of a VP
containing a prepositional specifier, as contrasts such as the following
illustrate:
(27)(a) He sent to you which copy of the book? (echo question)
(b)
Which copy of the book did he
send to you?
(28)(a) He sent to you a copy of which book? (echo question)
(b)
*Which book did he send to you
a copy of?
For
reasons which are not clear, it would seem that extracting a subpart of an
in-situ VP-complement across an oblique argument leads to ungrammaticality.
Whatever the precise nature of the relevant constraint[22],
it provides us with an account of the ungrammaticality of sentences like (26).
Having
looked at Chomsky’s analysis of rightward extraction, I now turn to look at his
analysis of leftward Thematization of objects in sentences like (1b) There were several large packages placed on
the table. There are a number of questions which arise about the
descriptive adequacy of the claims made by Chomsky. For one thing, his claim
that Thematization cannot apply in a successive-cyclic fashion would seem to be
called into question by sentences such as:
(29)(a) There are continually being new treatments
developed for cancer
(b)
There are continually new
treatments being developed for cancer
(30)(a) He could see that there was being umbrage taken at his remarks
(b)
He could see that there was umbrage
being taken at his remarks
(29a/30a)
is the output we obtain (under Chomsky’s analysis) if the thematized object
moves to spec-vP (where it is supposedly is frozen in place); (29b/30b) is the
output we obtain if the italicised object moves in successive-cyclic fashion
from spec-vP to become the specifier of the superordinate projection headed by being. The grammaticality of (29b/30b)
might at first sight seem to lead us to the conclusion that Thematization
(contrary to what Chomsky suggests) can indeed be iterated and hence arguably
is a syntactic operation akin to (iterable) A-movement.
However,
the conclusion that Thematization is
a syntactic A-movement operation and hence can be iterated in a
successive-cyclic fashion raises the question of why iteration is not possible
in structures such as (16) above, repeated as (31) below:
(31)(a) There had been umbrage taken at his remarks
(b)
*There had umbrage been taken
at his remarks
Any
attempt to handle the difference in grammaticality between (30b) and (31b) by
positing that being has an
EPP-feature (requiring it to project a specifier) but been does not would not only be purely stipulative in character but
would also fail to account for the ungrammaticality of the (b) examples in
(32-33) below:
(32)(a) There ended up being several demonstrators arrested
(b)
*There ended up several
demonstrators being arrested
(c) Several demonstrators
ended up being arrested
(33)(a) There kept being complaints made about the noise
(b)
*There kept complaints being
made about the noise
(c)
Complaints kept being made
about the noise
The
ungrammaticality of sentences like (32b/33b) calls into question the
plausibility of a successive-cyclic A-movement analysis.
A
closer look at the data in (29-33) suggests the generalisation that in English
expletive passives, the associate must occupy a surface position immediately
below be (in the sense that be must be the closest verb c-commanding
the associate). Hence, we have grammatical outcomes in (29a) with new treatments following being, in (29b) with new treatments following are, in (30a) with umbrage following being,
in (30b) with umbrage following was, in (31b) with umbrage following been,
in (32a) with several demonstrators
following being and in (32b) with complaints following being. Conversely, we have ungrammatical
outcomes in (31b) where umbrage
follows had, in (32b) where several demonstrators follows ended up, and in (33b) where complaints follows kept. Data such as (34-36) below lend further empirical support to
the generalisation that a preparticipial associate in expletive passives must
be positioned below be:
(34)(a) Several
demonstrators got arrested by the
police
(b)
*There got several demonstrators arrested by the police
(35)(a) They wanted replica guns issued to the campus cops
(b)
*They wanted there issued to the campus cops replica guns
(36)(a) There seem to have been several passengers injured
(b)
*There seem to have several passengers been injured
(c)
*There seem several passengers
to have been injured
The
most straightforward conclusion to arrive at on the basis of data such as
(29-36)
is that the relevant sentences are existential structures of the form there+be+associate+participle (with the
participial expression modifying the associate in some way) – contrary to what
Chomsky claims.
An
existential analysis would also resolve a number of other puzzles which
surround Chomsky’s Thematization
analysis. One is why the verb be is
apparently immune from the V-DO constraint, as the following contrast shows:
(37)(a) There were several large packages on the table
(b)
*There were placed several large
packages on the table
In
terms of the assumptions made here, we can provide a straightforward answer to
this question by positing that structures like (37a) are existential be structures in which the closest verb
c-commanding the italicised associate is be[23],
whereas in (37b) the closest verb c-commanding the italicised associated is placed.
The
existential analysis proposed here also provides the key to a further mystery
in Chomsky’s analysis. A key claim which Chomsky makes is that not only passive
participles but also unaccusative verbs are subject to the V-DO constraint – a
claim illustrated in terms of contrasts such as the following:
(38)(a) *There came several angry men into the room
(b)
There came into the room several
angry men
(39)(a) *There arrived a strange package in the mail
(b) There arrived
in the mail a strange package
Under
Chomsky’s analysis, structures like (38a/39a) are barred by the V-DO
constraint, and structures such as (39b/39b) are the result of rightward
Extraction of the italicised object[24].
But given the assumption that intransitive objects can undergo leftward
Thematization in passive participle structures, we should expect the same
leftward movement of the object to be possible with unaccusative participles.
However, it is not, as the ungrammaticality of examples like those in (40)
below illustrates:
(40)(a) *There had several angry men come into the room
(b)
*There has a strange object
arrived in the mail
Nothing
in Chomsky’s analysis (as far as I can see) precludes leftward Thematization
from applying to unaccusative objects in the same way as it applies to passive
objects; and simply stipulating that
passive participles have an EPP-feature which unaccusative participles lack
would be an ad hoc expedient entirely lacking in explanatory force. By
contrast, under the existential analysis of There+be+associate+participle
structures proposed here, the ungrammaticality of structures like (40a) can be
accounted for straightforwardly by positing that
the
relevant structures lack the existential predicate be which is required in the relevant existential expletive
construction in English.
7. Conclusion
The
main goal of this paper has been to argue against the existence of the two
phonological XP-movement operations which Chomsky posits in his analysis of
expletive passive/unaccusative structures in English. I argued that the
clause-final object in expletive passives like There were placed on the table several large packages is an in-situ
object which is first-merged in the canonical VP-complement position associated
with objects. Likewise, I argued for a parallel conclusion in relation to
clause-final objects in expletive unaccusatives such as There arrived in the mail a strange package. I also argued that
sentences such as There were several large
packages placed on the table are existential structures of the form there+be+associate +participial modifier,
in which the associate is likewise generated in situ. Under the analysis
proposed here, a sentence like How many
large packages were there placed on the table? could in principle either be
the wh-movement counterpart of an existential structure such as There were several large packages placed on
the table or the wh-counterpart of a genuine expletive passive structure
such as There were placed on the table
several large packages[25].
8. References
Bowers,
J. (1993) ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic
Inquiry 24: 591-656.
Chomsky,
N (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics
Chomsky,
N & Lasnik H (1977) ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425
-504
Hale,
K & Keyser, S J (1991) On the Syntax
of Argument Structure, Lexicon
Project Working Papers, Center for
Cognitive Science, MIT
Hale,
K & Keyser, S J (1993) `On argument structure and the lexical expression of
semantic relations’, in K Hale & S J
Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20,
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, pp.53-109
Hale,
K & Keyser, S J (1994) ‘Constraints on argument structure’, in B Lust, M
Suñer & J Whitman (eds) Heads, Projections and Learnability,
Erlbaum,
Hillsdale NJ, vol.1, pp.53-71
Kayne,
R (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax,
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Kuno,
S (1973) ‘Constraints on Internal Clauses and Sentential Subjects’,
Linguistic
Inquiry 4: 363-385
Larson,
R (1988) ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335
-391
Larson,
R (1990) ‘Promise and the theory of
control’, Linguistic Inquiry 22:
103-39
Pesetsky,
D & Torrego E (2000) ‘T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences’, to
appear in M Kenstowicz (ed) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press,
Cambridge Mass.
Stowell,
T (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure,
PhD diss, MIT
___________________________________________________________________
[1] I am grateful to members of the LAUG Research Group at Essex (Martin Atkinson, Bob Borsley, Claudia Felser, Mike Jones and Roger Hawkins) for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This version appeared in Essex Research Reports in Linguistics (November 2000), vol. 33, pp.33-49.
[2] Impersonal passives like It was agreed that the chairman should be reprimanded are another type of passive with expletive subjects, but are not discussed here since they do not manifest the phenomenon of object displacement which is the central focus of this paper.
[3] As Mike Jones points out, sentences such as Any umbrage which was taken at his remarks was soon forgotten or The homage which was paid to the former president was gratifying might suggest that this claim must be weakened somewhat, since a relative pronoun with an idiom chunk antecedent can serve as the object of the relevant verb.
[4] Throughout this paper, labelled bracketings are simplified by showing only heads and maximal projections, and by not showing structure not immediately relevant to the discussion at hand: material which is deleted at the end of the relevant phase is indicated by strikethrough and traces are shown in a smaller typeface. (1b) only has the structure shown here at the relevant stage of derivation as an expletive passive, not as an existential passive.
[5] If Bowers (1993) is correct in supposing that perfectly is a VP-adverb, the position of the participle manoeuvred in The shuttle was manoeuvred perfectly into position would suggest that the participle raises from V to v. To simplify exposition, I overlook the suggestion made by Chomsky that some or all head-movement operations may be phonological in nature: it is not clear whether Chomsky would hold that this is the case for movement from V to v.
[6] To simplify exposition, I am assuming here that be originates in T, though the fact that passive be has nonfinite forms may suggest that it originates in a lower position and from there raises to T. However, this is an incidental detail which does not affect the main thrust of the argumentation here.
[7] Because of space constraints, the trace of several large packages is represented as slp
[8] I am assuming here that V-movement is a phonological operation; but it does not affect the argumentation here if it is a syntactic operation.
[9] To save space,
the trace of several large packages
is shown as slp. Recall that
labelled bracketings are simplified by not showing intermediate projections –
only heads and maximal projections.
[10] (12) is grammatical as an existential (adjectival) passive, but this is irrelevant to Chomsky’s point. Personally, I also find it grammatical as an expletive (verbal) passive as well – i.e. for me it is ambiguous.
[11] It is not clear what makes Thematization/Extraction obligatory in Chomsky’s analysis – as noted later in the text.
[12] (13b) is more acceptable as an existential/adjectival passive, but this is irrelevant here
[13] It is not clear to me why Chomsky posits that phonological operations cannot be iterated. If (as he suggests) head movement may be a phonological operation, it would appear that it can be iterated in that (e.g.) a finite verb can move to T and thence to C in successive (iterated) steps in (British English) structures such as Have you any wool?
[14] Other, perhaps, than phonological cliticisation operations by which a clitic C attaches to a host H is there is no phonologically overt material intervening between the two at the stage of derivation when PF-cliticisation applies. A case in point might be auxiliary contraction structures such as Where’s he going? However, an alternative
no-movement approach to PF cliticisation would be to explore the possibility suggested by Chomsky’s (1999, p.11) that phonological rules typically ‘blur or remove boundaries between units’ (which raises the possibility that contraction might result from removal of the boundaries between clitic and host where there is no overt phonological material between the two).
[15] Or adjunction of a head to H, if an EPP feature can also drive head movement as in Pesetsky and Torrego (2000).
[16] If V-to-v movement is phonological, (18) will be the structure at PF; if it is syntactic, (18) will be the structure at both the PF and LF interfaces.
[17] By contrast, under the analysis sketched earlier, the direct object would originate in VP-specifier position in (1c) but in VP-complement position in (17a), presupposing a non-uniform account of the syntax of direct objects.
[18] If V-to-v movement is phonological
[19] The grammaticality of structures such as You must talk to Mary about herself suggests that an oblique argument can c-command and bind a reflexive.
[20] One well-known exception is that that-clauses can seemingly passivise in sentences such as That several prisoners had escaped was reported to the authorities. It may be that apparent passivisation here is a topicalisation or focalisation operation of some kind.
[21] This of course does not preclude the possibility that transitive direct objects move to a superordinate specifier position, e.g. as in We showed compromising pictures of themselves to the blackmail victims.
[22] An interesting possibility to explore might be an incompatibility between the interpretive consequences of leaving the object in situ in VP-complement position and the interpretive consequences of extracting part of it via
wh-movement.
[23] Other non-verbal material can intervene between be and the associate, e.g. an adverb like definitely in a sentence such as There were definitely several large packages on the table.
[24] Under the very different analysis proposed here, the structures in (38b/39b) are the result of first-merging the unaccusative object in its canonical VP-complement position, not of movement.
[25] In my judgement, the relevant wh-question is ambiguous, as expected under the analysis proposed here.