A-Dependencies, Clause Structure, and the System of

A-Dependencies, Clause Structure, and the System of Subordination3 Takashi Toyoshima 1. Introduction There is a grwoing attention to the study of functional categories in the recent literature of GB syntax since Chomsky(1986). He generalized the X-theory over functional categories and proposed that the once defective clausal categories S and S should be considered as IP and CP respectively, following the work of Stowell(1981) and Huang(1982). Pollock(1989) further argues that IP should have a more articulated structure consisting of two distinct functional categories, T(ense) and Agr(eement) which can head their own projections. Chomsky(1989) takes one more step further to claim that there is another functional category decomposed of the category I1) . That is, Agr-O for object agreement.

In addition to these proposals for the clausal categories, there is continuing debate about the need for other functional categories, such as D(eterminer), M(ood), Asp(ect), Voice, etc.2) In this paper, we propose that the category C should be decomposed into two distinct functional categories U and M as below, along the line of Pollock's(1989) decomposition of the category I. UP Spec(UP)

U U

MP Spec(MP) M 1

M IP

The motivation behind this decomposition is the fact that the category C plays dual roles in syntax: subordination and Wh-attraction. These functions can, and must be, independent of each other, and there is no reason they should be performed by a single category. This decomposition is empirically supported by observations of various A-dependency constructions. The organization of this paper is as follows3). In section 2, we will survey various types of analyses for topicalization previously proposed. It is shown that none of them is descriptively perfect in the CP-structure. We will be mainly concerned with the problems regarding the landing-site of the topicalized phrase and its derivation. Then, we summarize the problems to be accounted for in this paper. In section 3, we suggest that most of the problems summarized in section 2 can be accounted for if we assume that CP can be iterated, and we will see that CP-iteration is indeed necessary, and that similar structures have been proposed for typologically diverse languages. Furthermore, we suggest that CP is not iterated inde nitely but is only doubled, and that relativization should be structurally separated from Wh-interrogation, in order to account for the problems of topicalization successfully in the double CP-structure. In section 4, we will see that there are considerable dierences between relativization and Wh-interrogation, which in turn suggest the plausibility of their separation, suggested in section 3. In section 5, we will examine the so-called null operator constructions, and argue that it is dubious as to whether some of these constructions actually involve null operator movement. Also, we observe that null operator constructions should be divorced from Wh-interrogation and be coupled with relativization. In section 6, we will study the construction called `left dislocation'. We rst exclude a construction, which has been traditionally included in the discussion of left dislocation. Then, we will argue that it should be structurally classi ed into three types, observing similar constructions in other languages. In section 7, we will reexamine topicalization, and classify it into dierent types, keeping in mind the discussions in section 6. Given the types of topicalization, we will show how the problems raised in section 2 can be accounted for. In section 8, we propose a new clause structure with a feature system. We will give an analysis for the relevant constructions and show that all the problems of topicalization can be accounted for. Section 9 summarizes our discussions, and addresses some implications and remaining problems. 2

2.

The Position of the Topic Phrase and the Nature of its Derivation Regarding the position of the topic phrase and the nature of its derivation in the construction called `topicalization', various analyses have been proposed. They roughly fall into ve types: I) Substitution movement of the topic phrase to Spec(CP); II) Base-generation of the topic phrase as a CP-adjunct, with the movement of a null operator into Spec(CP); III) Adjunction movement of the topic phrase to IP; IV) A hybrid of the above three types; adjunction of the topic phrase to IP transiting via Spec(CP), (with base-generation of the topic phrase as a CP-adjunct); and V) A modi cation of IV; CP-adjunction movement instead of base-generation. In this section, we will survey these ve types of analyses and summarize their problems to be accounted for. 2.1.

Substitution Analysis

Adopting the analysis of topicalization in Higgins(1973), Emonds(1976) developed the Structure-Preserving Hypothesis, analyzing topicalization as a root transformation which moves a topic phrase to substitute an empty COMP node (Spec(CP) in the current framework), as analogous to Wh-movement, based on the following facts. A topic phrase is fronted to the clause initial position as below: (1) a. These stepsi I used to sweep t i with a broom. b. Each parti John examined t i carefully. c. Our daughteri we are proud of t i . The above sentences can be interrogated, and the topic phrases are still at the clause initial position, in front of the inverted auxiliary verbs4) . (2) a. These stepsi did you use to sweep t i with a broom? b. Each parti did John examine t i carefully? c. Your daughteri are you proud of t i ? The topic phrases compete with an interrogative Wh-phrase for the clause initial position5). (3) a. ?* Whatj these stepsi did you use to sweep t i with t j ? a.' ?? These stepsi whatj did you use to sweep t i with t j ? b. ?* Howj each parti did John examine t i t j ? b.' ?? Each parti howj did John examine t i t j ? c. ?* Whoj your daughteri t j is proud of t i ? c.' ?? Your daughteri whoj t j is proud of t i? Thus, it would seem that a topic phrase is moved to Spec(CP), as an instance of Wh-movement. This substitution analysis is further supported by the fact that topical3

ization shows various Wh-movement diagnostics, as below: (4)

It leaves a gap (or trace). Thus, it is a movement6) . This can be tested by lling the gap with an overt non-pronominal NP7). a. Johni , I like t i . b. * Johni , I like Tomj .

(5)

Where there is a bridge, the movement is unbounded. Johni , Mary thinks (that) Bill said (that) Susan believes (that) I like t i.

(6)

It observes the Complex NP Constraint. a. ?* Syntactic Structures i , I met the man who read t i . b. ?? Syntactic Structures i , I heard the report that John read t i .

(7)

It observes the Wh-Island Constraint8). ?* Syntactic Structures i , I wonder who read t i .

(8)

It observes the Subject Condition. a. Maryi , I saw a picture of t i . b. * Maryi , a picture of t i surprised me.

(9)

It observes the Adjunct Condition. * This reasoni , I left early for t i .

(10) It observes the Speci ed Subject Condition. a. Maryi , I saw a picture of t i . b. * Maryi , I saw John's picture of t i . (11) It shows the Strong Crossover Eect9) . a. b.

Johni , Maryj thinks I like t i . Johni , he3i=j thinks I like t i .

(12) It shows the that {t Eect. Johni , I think (*that) t i won the race. (13) It licenses a parasitic gap. This articlei , I led t i without reading ei . However, this analysis is not problem-free. As Hooper & Thompson(1973) observe, topicalization occurs in certain embedded clauses. They claim that the declarative complements of verbs of saying, verbs of mental process, and semifactive verbs are asserted 4

clauses, and that topicalization as an emphatic root transformation (ERT) can be applied to them, as below, in which the topic phrase follows the complementizer that 10). (14) a. The inspector explained that each parti he had examined t i very carefully. b. It appears that this booki he read t i thoroughly. c. We saw that each parti he had examined t i carefully. Reversing the order of the complementizer that and the topic phrase will amount to ungrammaticality, as argued in Rochemont(1989), as below: (15) a. Bill says that John, Mary doesn't like. b. * Bill says John, that Mary doesn't like. If that is at the C-head, it means that the topic phrase is not moved to Spec(CP), which appears to the left of, not to the right of the C-head. 2.2.

Base-Generation Analysis

Proposing the following PS rules, Chomsky(1977) reconciled the Wh-movement nature of topicalization and the possibility of topicalization in embedded declarative clauses. (16) a. S ! TOP 8 S 9 < = b. S ! COMP : S ; S He argues that a topic phrase is base-generated at TOP, and a Wh-like element, interpreted as coreferential with the topic phrase by rules of construal, moves to COMP and is then deleted. In current terms, it is derived by the movement of a null operator to Spec(CP). With the above PS rules, TOP and COMP can be generated recursively. Thus it is possible for TOP to follow COMP, while maintaining the characteristics of Wh-movement. However, this reconciliation presents a new problem. Since recursion of TOPs and COMPs is allowed by the PS rules (16), the combination of topicalization and Wh-interrogation in a simplex clause is predicted. This prediction cannot be borne out as Chomsky(1977) himself cites the following examples: (17)

a. ?* To whomi , this bookj , should we give t j t i ? b. ?? This bookj , to whomi should we give t j t i ?

Furthermore, multiple topicalization and multiple Wh-interrogation are also predicted, but neither is grammatical as shown below11). (18) a. ?? On the tablei, this bookj , John put t j t i ? b. ?? On which deski whatj did John put t j t i ? Therefore, he stipulates that S is also a bounding node, and argues that the subjacency condition and the doubly- lled COMP lter will block these possibilities. But still, 5

it cannot block the cases like (15b) where the topic phrase precedes the complementizer that , if the recursion of TOP and COMP is freely allowed. Moreover, Langendoen(1979) and Delahunty(1983) observe that constructions parallel to (3a', b', c') and (17b) are grammatical as below, contrary to the claims made in Chomsky(1977), Higgins(1973) and Emonds(1976)12). (19) These prices, what can anyone do about? (20)

a. b. c. d. e.

To Bill, what will you give for Christmas? And to Cynthia, what do you think you will send? For Fred, what are you going to buy? And on this shelf, what do you think we should put? And a book like this, to whom would you give?

If the above examples are indeed acceptable, it means that neither the substitution analysis nor the base-generation analysis (with the subjacency condition and the doubly- lled COMP lter) is correct. 2.3.

IP-Adjunction Analyses

2.3.1. Stable Subject Analysis

To account for the possibility of topicalization in embedded declaratives, another direction of solutions has been investigated. Baltin(1982) analyzes topicalization as S-adjunction (IP-adjunction) movement of a topic phrase. Thus, the topic phrase follows the complementizer that . Furthermore, he argues that topicalization is compatible with the Wh-movement, as predicted. He oers the following example as an evidence, which is inconsistent with the observation (7). (21) He's the man to whomi libertyj we could never grant t j t i . Admitting that not all the speakers of English agree with his judgement, he attributes the inconsistency in judgements to the parametric dierence of the bounding node among individuals13). Then, the ungrammaticality of the examples in (3) and (17) must be due to the fact that the topic phrases are adjoined not to IP but to C or CP, if the inverted auxiliaries are at the C-head. However, Rochemont(1989) observes that placing the topic phrase between the inverted auxiliary and the subject does not yield to the grammaticality as below: (22) * What did to Tom Mary give? 6

2.3.2. Predicate-Internal Subject Analysis

The problems we have seen derive from the standard assumption that the Subject-Auxiliary Inversion (SAI) is a result of the I-to-C head movement of auxiliaries (henceforth I-to-C), as argued in Koopman(1984) and Chomsky(1986) among others. However, this I-to-C analysis for SAI is not unanimously accepted, as seen in Pesetsky(1989), Rognvaldsson & Thrainsson(1990) and Diesing(1990), for example. Adopting the Predicate-Internal Subject Hypothesis (PISH) proposed in Kitagawa(1986), Fukui(1986), Kuroda(1988) and Koopman & Sportiche(1988) among others, Pesetsky(1989) argues that SAI in English interrogatives is not an instance of I-to-C but rather an incomplete subject raising within IP. Subjects are base-generated and assigned their -roles within a predicate phrase, and raised to Spec(IP) to receive nominative Case from the I-head by SPEC-Head Agreement (SHA), as typically found in declarative clauses. But as suggested in Kitagawa(1986) and Koopman & Sportiche(1988), the subject does not need to move all the way up to Spec(IP) to receive nominative Case; the I-head may assign nominative Case to the Spec of its complement phrase by Exceptional Case Marking (ECM). Arguing that non-exclamative matrix clauses are IPs and embedded clauses are CPs, Pesetsky(1989) concludes that in embedded clauses, Wh-movement is a movement to Spec(CP) triggered by SHA with the Q feature placed at the C-head, and the subject is moved to Spec(IP) to be Case-marked from the I-head by SHA. In the matrix, Wh-movement is a movement to Spec(IP) by SHA with the Q feature at the I-head. The I-head Case-marks the subject in the Spec of its complement via ECM, if the subject itself is not a Wh-phrase, which would be raised to Spec(IP) by SHA with the Q feature and Case-marked also by SHA with the I-head. With those analyses, Pesetsky argues that Baltin's(1982) analysis of topicalization as IP-adjunction can be maintained14). It is expected that topic phrases should appear to the left of the moved Wh-phrase in matrix interrogatives, and to the right of the moved Wh-phrase in embedded interrogatives. The rst half of the prediction may be borne out in examples (19), (20) above, some of which Pesetsky(1989) also refers to; in (17a), (21) above, and in (23) below, which are also taken from Delahunty(1983). (23) a. * To whom, a book will you give for Christmas? b. * On which shelf, the pots will you put? c. * For whom, a fur coat will you buy? For the second half of the prediction, Pesetsky(1989) gives the following paradigms. (24) a. ? I wonder why a book like this, I should buy. b. ? I wonder to whom this book we should give. 7

c. ? Tell me what to Bill you're going to give for Christmas. d. ? Ask him what book to John he would give. e. ? I need to know what with Bill he's going to discuss. (25)

a. b. c. d.

* I wonder a book like this, why should I buy. * I wonder this book to whom we should give. * I need to know to John what he would give. * Tell me this book to whom you will give.

However, McCawley(1988) judges parallel examples to be unacceptable, as below: (26) a. Fred asked wherei John had put the skates t i . b. * Fred asked wherei the skatesj John had put t j t i . c. * Fred asked the skatesj wherei John had put t j t i . (27)

a. Fred asked whether John put the skates in the closet. b. ?? Fred asked whether the skatesi John put t i in the closet. c. * Fred asked the skatesi whether John put t i in the closet.

While admitting cases like (19, 20), Rochemont(1989) also argues that topicalization in embedded interrogatives is not acceptable, irrespective of the relative order of the topic phrase and the Wh-phrase15)). With respect to this disagreement in judgements, we would follow McCawley(1988) and Rochemont(1989), since to the best of my limited knowledge, I am not aware of any references which judges topicalization in embedded interrogatives to be acceptable, other than Pesetsky(1989). While both of these adjunction analyses can account for the occurrence of topicalization in embedded declaratives, analyses for the partial compatibility of topicalization and Wh-movement are based on rather subtle evidences. Moreover, without any principled prohibitions on multiple adjunction to the same categorial node, these analyses predict multiple topicalization as in (18a) to be grammatical16). Also, Wh-diagnostics of topicalization such as (5{13) cannot be account for. Especially problematic is the Wh-island eect. If the unbounded movement of a topic phrase is to be accounted for in terms of successive-cyclic IP-adjunction, it is not at all clear why it should observe the Wh-Island Constraint17). 2.4.

Transit Analyses

2.4.1. Upright IP-Adjunction Analysis

In order to account for the Wh-island eect of topicalization, Lasnik & Uriagereka(1988) modify Baltin's(1982) adjunction analysis. They stipulate that topic phrases adjoin to IP, transiting via COMP (Spec(CP)) successive-cyclically. However, another question arises. Consider the following paradigm taken from Rochemont(1989). 8

(28)

a. * What does John think that Bill, Mary gave to? b. * This is the man who that book, Mary gave to. c. * Howi did you say [ that the car, Bill xed t i ] ? d. * This book, I know that Tom, Mary gave to. The above example shows that topicalization forms an island for further extractions of other phrases. In these examples, the topic phrases are only adjoined to IP of the complement clauses or of the relative clause, and do not pass through their Spec(CP). Thus their Spec(CP) should be available as an escape hatch for Wh-phrases or another topic phrase to transit through, in order to reach their matrix positions. Contrary to this prediction, the examples in (28) are ungrammatical18). 2.4.2. Skipping IP-Adjunction Analysis

Revising the Barrier Model of Chomsky(1986), Lasnik & Saito(1992) alternatively argue that adjunction creates an island19), and that a topic phrase does not adjoin to IP successive-cyclically but moves via COMP (Spec(CP)) successive-cyclically, until it resides in its ultimate S-structure position, which must be an IP-adjoined position. They also permit the base-generation of TOP node, as in the analysis of Chomsky(1977), only in matrices in order to explain left dislocation20). In their analysis, the topic island eect naturally follows, since the topic phrase adjoined to IP creates an island. The sensitivity to the Wh-island can also be accounted for, as the topic phrase must proceed through Spec(CP). Topicalization over matrix Wh-interrogatives and topicalization in relative clauses are ruled out successfully as Lasnik & Saito consider both cases ungrammatical. However, this analysis would be insucient if topicalization over matrix Wh-interrogatives and topicalization in relative clauses are indeed grammatical as in (19), (20) and (21) as Langendoen(1979), Delahunty(1983) and Baltin(1982) judge respectively, and we assume they are. 2.5.

CP-Adjunction Analysis

Maintaining the possibility of IP-adjunction, Rochemont(1989) modi es Lasnik & Saito's(1992) analysis so that a topic phrase is not base-generated but can adjoin to CP if CP is not an argument21). This conditional clause of non-argumenthood is adopted from Chomsky(1986), who gives more general conditions on adjunction. This modi cation excludes topicalization in embedded Wh-interrogatives, while permitting topicalization over matrix Wh-interrogatives. Nevertheless, this modi cation still cannot explain the ungrammaticality of topicalization in whether -complements with whether -topic order, as in (27b). In this case, 9

nothing moves other than the topic phrase itself, hence no topic island eect should ensue. Therefore, the topic phrase should be allowed to appear at the IP-adjoined position of whether -complements. The last descriptive fact of topicalization which concerns us here is that verbs seem to be subcategorized with respect to their bridge nature for topicalization, which is suggested in Postal(1972) with the following paradigm22). (29) a. Maxi , Harry said Joan would never be willing to marry t i . b. Harry said that Maxi, Joan would never be willing to marry t i . c. Maxi , Harry said Joan realized I hated t i . d. Harry said that Maxi, Joan realized I hated t i. e. * Joan realized that Maxi , I hated t i . f. * Max said that Mary realized that Heleni , you loved t i . As the above examples indicate, the verbs say and realize work as bridges for the topic phrase, and the former can take a complement clause with topicalization, while the latter cannot. Then, the following questions may be raised. What makes the topic phrase strand in certain declarative complements? How can a topic phrase be sensitive to the governing verb, whether it can be further moved, or has to stop at an IP-adjoined position and not move into Spec(CP)? If Wh-movement is induced by SHA with the feature speci cation of the C-head, then what triggers topicalization? None of the adjunction-oriented approaches would be able to answer these questions in a principled way without diculties. Thus far, we have reviewed the ve types of analyses, and found that none of them are perfect. A conclusive analysis must, rst of all, account for the general Wh-movement nature of topicalization. Second, it has to explain the fact that topicalization is possible in embedded declaratives and relative clauses, while it is not in embedded interrogatives. Third, it ought to explicate the topic island eect. Fourth, it should clarify the triggering factor of topicalization and explain its bridge eect. And nally, it needs to give an account of the disagreement on the acceptability of topicalization over matrix Wh-interrogations. 3. Iterated CP Structure A motivation for adjunction-oriented approaches for topicalization comes from the fact that topicalization can occur in embedded clauses, but left dislocation cannot. Chomsky's(1977) base-generation analysis, which is proposed to treat the both constructions in a parallel fashion, predicts that both are possible23). If the generation of the TOP node, which also hosts a left-dislocated phrase in his analysis, is restricted only to matrix

10

clauses, then the IP-adjoined position is the only possibility left for the topic phrase in declarative complements. The problem with the base-generation analysis is not the recursive nature of its PS rules, but rather its uni ed treatment of topicalization and left dislocation. If we abandon such a uni ed treatment, we do not need to appeal for the null operator movement, but can move the topic phrase into Spec(CP) as in the substitution analysis, in order to maintain the Wh-movement nature of topicalization24) . Ignoring the TOP node, suppose that CP can be iterated, and that the topic phrase moves to Spec(CP). Placing that at the upper C-head, the relative Wh-phrase at the upper Spec(CP), and the topic phrase at the lower Spec(CP), topicalization in declarative complements or in relative clauses may be accounted for. Indeed, there seems to be a construction which should be considered to involve CP-iteration in embedded clauses: Negated Constituent Preposing. In this section, we will examine this construction, and see the clause structures proposed for typologically diverse languages, which favor embedded CP-iteration. 3.1.

Negated Constituent Preposing

As one of his root transformations, Emonds(1976) lists Negated Constituent Preposing (henceforth negative preposing), which super cially appears to be a combination of topicalization of a negative phrase and SAI as below: (30) a. Never will she buy a car. b. Only a few students did he meet in the East. However, Hooper & Thompson(1973) observes that it is also possible in asserted complement clauses, introduced by that , as in the case of topicalization. (31) a. Alice vowed that under no circumstances would she loan me the key. b. I exclaimed that never in my life had I seen such a crowd. c. It's true that never in his life has he had to borrow money. d. I found out that never before had he had to borrow money. SAI occurs in the embedded clauses introduced by that , and the topic-like negative phrases are positioned between that and the inverted auxiliaries. If SAI is an instance of I-to-C, it means that there are two C-heads; one for the complementizer that , and one for the inverted auxiliaries, as argued in Tajima & Arimura(1988). Hooper & Thompson(1973) also oer the examples of negative preposing in relative clauses as below: (32) a. Hal, who under no circumstances would I trust, asked for a key to the vault. b. This car, which only rarely did I drive, is in excellent condition. c. I saw a dress which under no circumstances would I have bought. 11

The negative phrase is between the relative Wh-phrase and the inverted auxiliary. If SAI is, again, an instance of I-to-C, it means that the negative phrase is adjoined to C, a nonmaximal projection. Such an operation is banned in the framework of Chomsky(1986). Of course, SAI may not be an instance of I-to-C as we have seen in 2.3.2. In PISH, the super cially inverted auxiliary can remain at the I-head. Then, the negative phrase has two possible landing-sites: the IP-adjoined position and Spec(IP). First, suppose that the negative phrase is adjoined to IP. Then, Spec(IP) is available for the subject to be raised, or it can strand in the Spec of the predicate phrase. In either position, it can receive nominative Case from the I-head by SHA or ECM. However, if the subject gets raised to Spec(IP), the construction becomes indistinguishable from topicalization of a negative phrase, which has a dierent meaning from the negative preposing construction, as argued in Jackendo(1972) with the following contrast. (33) a. In no clothes, does Mary look attractive. b. In no clothes, Mary looks attractive. The construction with SAI is interpreted as sentential negation, whereas the construction without SAI is interpreted as constituent negation. The subject must strand to qualify as a negative preposing construction. Then, what blocks the subject to be raised becomes a question. Suppose, next, that the negative phrase moves into Spec(IP). Then, Spec(CP) is vacant and no barrier exists for extraction of the object. This may be the case for the occurrence in relative clauses. However, the construction exhibits an island eect with respect to Wh-interrogation, as observed in Rizzi & Roberts(1989) as below: (34) ?* What did he say that under no circumstances would he do? They argue that the idea of CP-iteration can account for this islandhood within the framework of Chomsky(1986). In the iterated CP-structure, the complement clause in (34) would have a representation like the following: (35) [CP t 0i that [CP under no circumstancesj [C wouldk [IP he t k do t i t j ]]]] The lower CP obtains bounding properties since its Spec is occupied, which parallels to the Wh-island eect. They further observe that negative preposing is not possible in whether -complements or if -complements as below: (36) * I wonder if/whether under no circumstances would John do that. They argue that I-to-C is blocked by the presence of whether or if , assuming that that has a marked property which allows it to select CP optionally, hence CP can iterate, but 12

neither whether nor if has such a property25). From the above discussion, we conclude that SAI in the negative preposing construction is an instance of I-to-C, hence CP can be iterated. 3.2.

Clause Structure in Other Languages

On universal ground, CP-iteration can be further supported if it can be motivated in languages other than English. Indeed, there have been a number of analyses which argue for the embedded CP-iteration in various languages. 3.2.1. Germanic Languages

It is well-known that Germanic languages exhibit the so-called Verb Second (V2) phenomenon, which is usually considered as an instance of V-to-C in a number of literature. It is often claimed to be a root phenomenon, but it has also been found in certain embedded clauses. In such cases, CP-iteration is one of the solutions to maintain the V-to-C analysis. Platzack(1986) argues that the main word order dierences among Danish, Dutch, German, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and English may be reduced to a small set of parameters in the categorial component, projections, and expansions. He claims that the dierent positioning of the nite verb in English and the other Germanic languages is due to their clause structures. S is a projection of INFL in English, while it is a projection of COMP in the others. The dierences among Dutch/German, Icelandic and Mainland Scandinavians with respect to the order of the subject, the nite verb and sentence adverbials can be explained by the dierences of the INFL1 expansions. Another word order dierence between Icelandic/Swedish and Danish/Norwegian with respect to the in nitival marker, the in nitival verb and sentence adverbials follows from the fact that the in nitival marker is base-generated under COMP in the former, but under INFL in the latter. And, he provides the following clause structures: (37) COMP2 (= S ) XP

COMP1 COMP

INFL1 (= S ) NP INFL VP

13

(38)

COMP2 (= S ) XP

COMP1 (= S ) COMP NP INFL1 VP

(39)

INFL

COMP2 (= S ) XP

COMP1 (= S ) COMP NP INFL1 INFL

VP

(37) is for English, (38) for Dutch and German, and (39) for the Scandinavians. In these structures, XP is the position to which the Wh-phrase is moved. Platzack also reports that main clause phenomena can be found in embedded clauses not only in English, but also in Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic. He gives the following examples of Swedish. (40) a. Han sa att Lisa troligen hade rest till Rom. he said that Lisa probably had gone to Rome

b.

Han sa att Lisa hade troligen rest till Rom. he said that Lisa had probably gone to Rome

`He said that Lisa probably had gone to Rome.'

(40a) is an example of ordinary word order in an embedded clause. In the structure (39), the complementizer att is at COMP, the nite verb hade at INFL, the subject Lisa at the position indicated as NP, and the sentential adverb troligen is in the left-adjoined position of INFL1. An embedded V2 is found in (40b), where the order of the nite verb and the sentential adverb is reversed, which indicates that the nite verb has been raised to COMP. The subject must have also been raised to the XP-position. Then, there must be another COMP position outside COMP2 to host the complementizer att . This prediction can be further supported by the following facts: (41) a. Vart sa du att Lisa troligen hade rest? where said you that Lisa probably had gone

14

b. * Vart sa du att Lisa hade troligen rest? where said you that Lisa had probably gone

`Where did you say that Lisa probably had gone?'

(42)

Det verkar som om han inte ver sjuk. it

looks

as

if

he not was ill

`It looks as if he was not ill.'

The contrast in (41) indicates that Wh-movement is blocked when V2 has taken place in the embedded clause. It means that the escape hatch for the Wh-phrase to transit through is occupied by the raised subject. In (42), two complementizers som and om are present26). Platzack notes that Icelandic also exhibits an embedded V2 as below: (43) E g efast um a honum muni nokkur trysta. I doubt about that

him

will anymore trust

`I doubt that anyone will trust him.'

Furthermore, he cites the following example from mal Danish, where a topicalized negative ikke appears between the two complementizers om and at . (44) Han spurgte om ikke at vi havde set Ole. he

asked whether not that we had seen Ole

`He asked if we hadn't seen Ole.'

From these observations, he proposes the following clause structure with two COMPs to account for the above facts in (40{44)27). (45) COMP3 COMP

COMP2 XP

COMP1 COMP NP INFL1 INFL

VP

In an analysis for V2 in Germanics, Taraldsen(1985) argues that the V-to-C movement is obligatory under topicalization in Norwegian, even in embedded environments as below: (46) Vi tenkte at penger ville han ikke ha. we thought that money would he

not have

He then oers the following representation for the structure of the embedded clause, with 15

and ville positioned at COMPs. (47) : : : [S1 (at) [S2 pengeri [S1 villej [ han ikke t j ha t i ]]]] at

Arguing that V2 in German is derived by the V-to-C movement, Haider(1985) gives the following clause structure, in order to account for its topic construction. (48) S T

S S

COMP0 W

COMP Vf

T is the position for topic phrases and W for Wh-phrases. The COMP hosts Vf ( nite verb), which is an amalgam of in ectional features and a verbal head moved out of S domain. The above structure is instantiated in the following examples. (49) a. Die Callas, diese Sangerin bewundert er seit Jahren. the Callas

this cantatrice

admires

he since years

b.

Deine schlaue Losung,

c.

Deinen schlauen Einfall, hast du den schon vergessen?

d.

Da er sich entschuldigt, es darauf ankommen zu lassen kam dir nicht in that he re . apologizes it to that come to let come you not in den Sinn?

your

wo

bleibt

die

denn jetzt?

smart solution where remains that part. now

your

smart

idea

have you that already forgotten

the mind

`That he apologizes, did you ever consider to take that risk?'

Also, Haider observes that the left-hand position of the nite verb serves as an escape hatch for long-distance extraction in German, as can be seen in the following contrast. (50) a. Wie ofti sagte sie dir [ e i hatte [ er e i angerufen ]] ? how often said she (to) you

has

he

called

b. * Wie ofti sagte sie dir [ er hatte [ e i angerufen ]] ? how often said she (to) you he has

called

deHaan & Weerman(1985) argue that the embedded V2 with an overt complementizer in Frisian is a result of the V-to-COMP/INFL movement in the following clause structure. 16

(51)

S COMP

S S

COMP/INFL

4

dat

V

The above structure is instantiated in the following examples. (52) a. Pyt sei dat hy my sjoen. Pyt said that he me seen

b.

ik leau dat hy kin him wol r^ede. I believe that he can him

save

`I believe that he can take care of himself.'

c.

hy is sa meager dat hy kin wol efter in reid sk^ulje. he is so skinny that he can

behind

a cane hide

In the structure (51), V moves to the empty node 4 under COMP/INFL, and the subject is left(-non-Chomsky)-adjoined to the lower S. 3.2.2. Judaic Languages

Yiddish is a creolized language with in uences from Hebrew, Slavics and Romances on the base of German. It is typologically grouped into Germanics, with remaining kinship with Hebrew. To account for the embedded topicalization with V2 in Yiddish, den Besten & Moed-van Walraven(1985) also argue that an embedded S may consist of COMP with S or S, along the same line of Chomsky(1977)28). The structures would be as follows: (53)

S COMP

S

TOP

S COMP

17

S

(54)

S COMP

S

COMP

S

These structures are for the following examples. (55) a. Avrom zogt, az haint vet Roxele kumen. Abraham says that today will Rachel

zix

come

b.

Ix bin

mexai, vail nexton iz er gekumen.

c.

der jid, vos in Boston hobn mir im gezen,

I am (re exive) happy because yesterday has he

the man, that in Boston have we him seen,

come

::: :::

den Besten & Moed-van Walraven consider that complementizers az (= that ), vail (= because ) and vos (= that ) are positioned at the upper COMP in the structure (53) or (54). The fronted phrases haint (= today ), nexton (= yesterday ) and in Boston are at TOP in (53), or at the lower COMP in (54), depending on how topicalization is analyzed. The genuinely Judaic language proper is Hebrew, which typologically belongs to Semitics. Reinhart(1981) proposes a clause structure with two COMPs, to deal with the anti-Wh-island eect in Hebrew. She argues that Rizzi's(1978) analysis of the S bounding node in Italian cannot be extended to Hebrew because Hebrew does not allow extraction from NP unlike Italian. Moreover, extraction from the Wh-island in Hebrew is somewhat dierent, freer than in English, but stricter than in Italian, so that the bounding node in Hebrew should be S, not S. Reinhart also demonstrates asymmetry between the extraction of interrogative pronouns and of relative pronouns in Hebrew, and consequently proposes the following PS rules. S ! (Q) COMP S (56) a. b. S ! NP VP She maintains S to be the bounding node, and the movement to be successive-cyclic in Hebrew. Q in (56a) is a kind of COMP, which can be used optionally and exclusively for interrogative pronouns due to semantic reasons. She argues that the facts in Hebrew can be explained in this hypothesis, with some other independently motivated semantic and pragmatic principles. The PS rules generate the following structure.

18

(57)

S

e

S

COMP

(Q)

she `that'

e

NP VP

She oers the following examples which exemplify the above structure. (58) a. ha+mahadura hazot, she+ani lo mevin lama davka ota ata mizman. this edition, that I can't understand

carix

, azla

why just it (rel) you need, has been long out

of print

b.

shalaxnu mixtavei toda leharbe anashim she+af exad lo zoxer bediuk ma mehem kibalnu. we sent letters of thanks to many people that no one remembers exactly

form them (rel) we got

c. ? ha+mixtavim she+ani roce ladaat shulxanxa. the letters that I want to know

le

+mi

otam

what

limsor munaxim al

to +whom them (rel) to+deliver are on your table

Hebrew relativization can have a resumptive pronoun which can be moved to the e node under COMP in the structure (57), and it may strand in an intermediate embedded clauses even if relativization applies in long-distance. In the examples (58), an interrogative pronoun and a relative resumptive pronoun are preposed to the rst and second positions of the same clause respectively, and the relative head appears in the long-distanced position. 3.2.3. Romance Languages

Reinhart(1981) further argues that the anti-Wh-island eect in Italian can also be accounted for in a similar fashion. She proposes the following PS rules for Italian. S ! COMP S (59) a. b. S ! COMP NP VP While maintaining the successive-cyclic movement of a Wh-phrase, she de nes both S and S to be bounding nodes in Italian. Both COMPs in (59) can be used for either interrogative Wh-phrases or relative operators. The PS rules (59) generate the following structure.

19

(60)

S COMP

S

COMP NP VP This structure can be instantiated in the following example which Reinhart(1981) cites from Rizzi(1978). (61) Tuo fratello, a cuii mi domando chej storie abbiano raccontato t j t i, era molto preoccupato. your brother, to whom i I wonder whichj stories they told

t j t i , was very troubled

Rivero(1978) claims that in Spanish, topicalization cannot be identi ed with Wh-movement since it does not observe the Wh-Island Constraint. Further, Rivero(1980) argues that topicalization in Spanish should be analyzed as a movement to COMP, with modi cation of the COMP system as below: (62)

COMP

!

QU

4 4 t

wh

QU is the symbol for the Spanish complementizer que , equivalent to the English that , and the dummy nodes 4t and 4wh are the landing-sites for the topic phrase and the Wh-phrase respectively. A motivation for the above modi cation of the COMP system that the Wh-phrase is placed to the right, not to the left of the complementizer, and the topic phrase between the complementizer and the Wh-node, is the existence of the following pairs. (63) a. Te preguntan que para que quieres el prestamo. you

ask(3-p)

that for what want(2-s) the

loan

`They ask you what do you want the loan for.'

b. * Te preguntan para que que quieres el prestamo. (64)

a.

Dinero, te preguntan que tanto para que quieres. money you

ask(3-p)

that so much for what want(2-s)

`Money, they ask you what do you want so much for.'

b. * Dinero, te preguntan que para que tanto quieres. Rivero further oers the following examples where a complementizer and a Wh-phrase cooccur. (65) a. Murmuro que con quien poda ir. murmured(3-s) that with whom could(3-s) go

`He asked, by murmuring, who could he go with.'

20

b.

Penso que cuales seran adecuados.

thought(3-s) that which ones would be approriate

`He wondered which ones would be appropriate.'

c.

Repitio que que libros queran comprar.

repeated(3-s) that which books wanted(3-p) to buy

`He asked again which books they wanted to buy.'

Against this analysis of the COMP expansion, Plann(1982) argues that no parallel analysis is possible for relativization and comparative formation in Spanish, which are considered to involve Wh-movement, and that the Complementizer Universal proposed in Chomsky & Lasnik(1977) can be maintained in Spanish, which places the Wh-phrase to the left of the complementizer. Topicalization in Spanish can also be analyzed as in Chomsky's(1977) base-generation analysis, with a slight modi cation of the PS rules (16) as below: (66) a. S ! (TOP) 8 S 9 < = b. S ! COMP : S ; S Making the TOP node optional, the PS rules (66) allow a structure like (67) below, in which COMPs can be generated recursively: (67) S NP

VP V

S S COMP

S

(TOP) COMP

S S

Moreover, Plann(1982) gives the following example, where two complementizers cooccur. (68) Mara f deca / preguntaba g que si no debieramos dejarlas en paz. Mary f was saying / was asking g that if not should(1-p) leave-them in peace

`Mary was asking whether we shouldn't leave them in peace.'

Here, si is a complementizer introducing an interrogative complement in Spanish, like if or whether in English. The example above shows that the two complementizers que and 21

(counterparts to the English that and if (or whether )) can cooccur29). This cannot be explained in Rivero's analysis. si

3.2.4. Japanese

In an analysis of multiple GA-nominative constructions, Ueyama(1989) proposes the following clause structure for Japanese30) . (69) MP Spec(MP)

M CP

Spec(CP)

M C

IP

C

M is a categorial node, with a feature related to the clausal types. The name M is given as a tentative label which refers to mood. The feature may be like [6realis], for example31). Her proposal of the above structure is to account for the three dierent focus interpretations of GA-nominatives in terms of the structural dierence of the positions of GA-nominatives: 1) GA-nominative which can allow either focus or non-focus interpretation is base-generated at Spec(IP) and the I-head is the Case-assigner as in the case of the English subject, 2) GA-nominative which cannot be interpreted as focus is base-generated as a complement of the V-head (or A-head) to which the amalgamated V-I (or A-I), formed by I-to-V (or I-to-A) head-lowering, Case-assigns, and 3) GA-nominative which is obligatorily interpreted as focus, is base-generated as an adjunct to IP or VP (or AP) to which there is no Case-assigner in its base-generated position; thus, this third GA-nominative moves to Spec(MP) in the above structure, to receive Case from the M-head. As an evidence that there exists another category above CP in Japanese, she gives the following examples. (70) a. 1: C ; D ILP ; 8, 60 ' 7 R)