Clausal subordination and the structure of the verbal phrase

In his first approach to recursion in clausal embedding, Chomsky (1957) postulates a proform in the matrix clause linked to an independently constructed clause that, via an application of the generalised transformation, eventually becomes the matrix verb’s complement. Chomsky (1965) replaces this with a direct clausal embedding analysis, with clausal recursion in the base component of the grammar. I argue here that, while direct clausal recursion is certainly needed, an update to the Chomsky’s (1957) approach (minus the application of the generalised transformation) deserves a prominent place in syntactic theory as well. The discussion is based on data from Dutch, German, and Hungarian. This paper addresses the role of presuppositionality in the context of clausal coordination, the analysis of the so-called wh-scope marking construction, and the importance of Agree in connection with a subordinate clause’s transparency or opacity to extraction. Central in the analysis is a perspective on the structure of the verbal phrase which accommodates two discrete structural positions for the object

Directions from the GET-GO : on the syntax of manner-of-motion verbs in directional constructions

Directional resultatives show puzzling syntactic restrictions. In Romance, broadly speaking, they do not occur at all with manner-of-motion verbs. In Dutch, directional resultatives with mannerof- motion verbs usually force postpositional order in the directional PP - but prepositional order is grammatical under cir cumstances that have so far defied a unified and insightful account. Focusing primarily on Dutch, this paper presents an analysis of directional resultative constructions and the syntactic representation of manner of motion which is centred around the following main claims: (a) directional resultative construc tions with manner-of-motion verbs can in principle be built on either of two structures, one featuring the light verb GO and the other the light verb GET; (b) while both light verbs take a small-clausal complement, GET takes one that is headed by a particle; (c) the particle in GET-constructions can license a null directional P in the struc ture of directional PPs built on a non-inherently directional adposition, and deliver prepositional order; (d) the absence of a particle in GO-constructions forces the null directional P in directional PPs built on non-inherently directional adpositions to either incorporate into GO or have the locative P embedded in its com plement to raise up to it; (e) manner-of-motion verbs have a MANNER component adjoined to GO/GET; (f) P-incorporation into MANNER-modified GO/GET is inadmissible (due to a ban on multiple adjunction to the same head); (g) in GO+MANNER structures, a null directional P can hence be licensed only by having a loc a tive P raise up to it; (h) raising of a locative P up to a directional P results in postpositional word order in Dutch, whereas the absence of raising of PLoc up to PDir delivers prepositional surface order.Els resultatives direccionals mostren restriccions sintàctiques sorprenents. En llengües romàni- ques, a grans trets, no apareixen mai amb verbs de manera de moviment. En holandès, els resul- tatius direccionals amb verbs de manera de moviment normalment requereixen l'ordre pospo- sicional en el SP direccional - però l'ordre preposicional és gramatical sota circumstàncies que fins ara han desafiat qualsevol explicació unificada i aprofundida. Centrant-nos bàsicament en l'holandès, en aquest article presentem una anàlisi de les construccions direccionals resultatives i la representació sintàctica de la manera of moviment que se centra en els postulats principals següents: (a) les construccions direccionals resultatives amb verbs de manera de moviment es poden construir, en principi, amb dues estructures, una amb el verb lleuger GO i l'altra amb el verb lleuger GET; (b) mentre que tots dos verbs lleugers prenen un complement d'oració reduïda, GET també pot prendre un complement encapçalat per una partícula; (c) la partícula de les cons- truccions amb GET pot legitimar una P direccional nul·la quan tenim una estructura de SPs direccionals construïts amb una adposició no inherentment direccional, cosa que dóna ordre pre- posicional; (d) l'absència d'una partícula en les construccions amb GO força que o bé la P direc- cional nul·la dels SPs direccional construïts amb aposicions no inherentment direccionals s'in- corpori a GO o bé la P locativa del seu complement s'elevi a la preposició nul·la; (e) els verbs de manera de moviment tenen un component MANERA adjuntat a GO/GET; (f) la incorporació de P a GO/GET modificat amb MANERA és inadmissible (a causa d'una prohibició d'adjunció múltiple a un mateix nucli; (g) així, doncs, en les estructures GO+MANERA , la P direccional nul·la es pot legitimar només si s'hi eleva la P locativa; (h) quan la P locativa s'eleva a la P direc- cional tenim l'ordre de mots posposicional en holandès, mentre que si no s'hi eleva tenim l'ordre preposicional

The Attractions of Agreement: Why Person Is Different

This paper establishes the generalization that whenever agreement with the finite verb is controlled by a constituent that is not in a Spec–Head relation with the inflectional head of the clause, this agreement cannot affect person. A syntactic representation for person inside the noun phrase and on the clausal spine is proposed which, in conjunction with the workings of agreement and concord, accommodates this empirical generalization and derives Baker’s Structural Condition on Person Agreement. The proposal also provides an explanation for the φ-feature agreement facts of specificational copular sentences. The paper places its findings on person vs. number agreement in the context of recent psycho- and neuro-linguistic investigation of number/person dissociation