In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Object Shift with Raising Verbs
  • C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

In minimalist work hypothesizing multiple specifiers associated with a single head, Chomsky (1995:sec.4.10, 2000) proposes that objects are formally licensed in an outer specifier of vP, a projection headed by a light verb representing causative or agentive semantics. In (1) the positions where the subject and direct object are generated are indicated (as Ext and Int, respectively), as well as the position where the object is formally licensed (Obj). In comparison to earlier analyses in the principles-and-parameters framework, this proposal continues to assume a separation between positions where elements are generated (the θ-positions) and positions where elements are formally licensed (the Case positions), but the formal licensing positions are no longer defined as specifiers of separate functional "agreement" heads, as in (2). [End Page 547]

(1)

(2)

The structure in (1) has the advantage that two seemingly independent relations—namely, assignment of a -role to the external argument and assignment of ("accusative") Case to the direct object—are concentrated in a single head, v. That these two functions are related is expressed in Burzio's Generalization (Burzio 1986:178).

(3) Burzio's Generalization

  1. a. A verbthat does not take an external argument cannot assign accusative Case.

  2. b. A verb that cannot assign accusative Case does not take an external argument.

In earlier frameworks the correlations expressed in (3) could not be fully explained. Assuming the structure in (1), (3) is explained if a verb that does not assign an external argument simply lacks vP in its verb phrase structure (cf. Chomsky 1995:315-316).

In this squib I present an argument showing that the reduction [End Page 548] of a structure like (2) to a structure like (1) is nevertheless incorrect. The evidence involves "restructuring" constructions in Dutch, where the internal argument of an embedded verb is formally licensed in the functional domain of a matrix verb that itself does not take an external argument. If verbs without an external argument lack vP, the formal licensing position for the internal argument of the embedded verb cannot be the outer specifier of vP, but must be a specifier of an independent functional head. This is accommodated in (2), but not in (1).1

Consider first a simple perception verb construction in Dutch.

(4) . . . dat ik Jan gisteren zag

that I Jan yesterday saw

' . . . that yesterday I saw Jan'

Here the argument of the perception verb zag 'saw', Jan, is separated from the verbb y the sentence adverb gisteren 'yesterday'. Following Vanden Wyngaerd (1989), I take this to imply that the object noun phrase moves to a licensing position in the functional domain. Vanden Wyngaerd, who shows by application of standard tests (locality and binding) that the object shift is A-movement, describes the object's licensing position as [Spec, AgrOP] (5a). In the structure (1) proposed by Chomsky (1995), the licensing position would be the outer specifier position of v (5b).2

(5)

  1. a. . . . [CP dat [ik [AgrOP Jan [vP gisteren [vP 〈ik〉 [VP zag 〈Jan〉]]]]]]

  2. b. . . . [CP dat [ik [vP Jan [v´ gisteren [v´ 〈ik3009; [VP zag 〈Jan〉]]]]]]

In an exceptional-Case-marking (ECM) construction involving the same perception verb, the external argument of the embedded verb appears in the same position in the functional domain of the matrix verb as is occupied by the internal argument of the perception verb in (4).

(6) . . . dat ik Jan gisteren zag winnen

that I Jan yesterday saw win

' . . . that yesterday I saw Jan win' [End Page 549]

In a principles-and-parameters analysis (see (2)), this position would again be [Spec, AgrOP] (7a), whereas in Chomsky's (1995) proposal (see (1)), it would be the outer specifier of vP (7b).

(7)

  1. a. . . . [CP dat [AgrSP ik [AgrOP Jan [vP gisteren [vP 〈ik〉 [VP zag [vP 〈Jan〉 [VP winnen]]]]]]]]

  2. b. . . . [CP dat [TP ik [vP Jan [v´ gisteren [ 〈ik3009; [VP zag [vP 〈Jan3009; [VP winnen]]]]]]]]

If the embedded verb winnen 'win' takes an internal argument such as de race 'the race', it, too, is moved to a licensing position in the functional domain of the matrix verb.3

(8) . . . dat ik Jan de race gisteren zag winnen

that...

pdf

Share