The Clausal Structure of Spanish

A Comparative Study

Francisco Ordonez

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781135715618
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Spanish Language
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This work studies various aspects of word order and clause structure in Spanish that have proved problematic for syntactic theory. These aspects are explored theoretically in light of the antisymmetry approach of Kayne (1994) and empirically by examining parallel structures in related languages. For example, the author uses antisymmetry to critique the traditional understanding of post-verbal subjects, which have assumed a right-adjunction approach. However, he provides empirical as well as theoretical reasons to believe that a combination of leftward movements constitutes a better alternative. Likewise, the study uses a number of combined theoretical and empirical arguments to provide new and more constrained analyses of overt wh -movement and pre-verbal subjects. It shows that the obligatory post-verbal positioning of overt subjects cannot be explained by recourse to a required overt head movement of the verb. Instead, the author explains this restriction by proposing that overt subjects, which are always topicalized in Spanish, conflict with the feature specifications of wh -complementizers. Finally, the author relates the obligatory topicalized nature of pre-verbal subjects in Spanish to a proposal that person agreement morphemes on the verb should be considered arguments that receive the subject theta-role. This book will be of interest to syntacticians and comparitivists, as well as scholars of Romance languages.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This study explores a number of issues involving the clausal structure of Romance with special emphasis on Spanish. The most important theoretical foundation of the study is Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry proposal, and the relation of hierarchy to linear order found there directly informs Chapters 2, 3 and 4. The analyses in these chapters are not only made possible by the theoretical tools of Kayne (1994). The results also provide support for that proposal. Specifically, the study shows that analyses compatible with antisymmetry provide superior empirical coverage to traditional ones that make use of mechanisms barred by Kayne’s proposal.

The topics of the chapters break down as follows: In Chapter 2, I present and defend new analyses coherent with the principles of antisymmetry for two marked orders in Spanish, V S O and V O S. I conclude that the alternation between these two orders can be explained by obtaining V O S from V S O by moving the object to the left. Chapter 3 explores the distribution of postverbal subjects comparatively. In this chapter I focus on the relatively looser restrictions on the distribution of these subjects in Spanish than in Catalan, French, and Italian. I propose a hypothesis in which focused subjects end up post-verbally by moving the TP to the left in a way parallel to Light Predicate Raising proposed in Larson (1988). The topic of Chapter 4 is the analysis of interrogatives and restrictions on word order. As predicted by Kayne (1994), I show that there is no movement of the verb to C. Chapter 5 looks at interesting questions concerning sentences containing pre-verbal subjects. In this final chapter, I explore the idea that pre-verbal subjects are in a left dislocated position. Following up on work by Taraldsen (1992), I link the left-dislocated nature of these subjects to the relatively rich inflectional System of many Romance languages. Unlike the rest of the problems explored this study, the structures examined here do not directly impinge on the theoretical issues elucidated in Kayne (1994). Nevertheless, the analysis of sentences with preverbal subjects aie crucial in understanding Romance clausal structure. Furthermore, they follow naturally from the questions explored previously.

1.1 Framework: Antisymmetry

As discussed in the previous section, the most important theoretical foundation of this study is the antisymmetry proposal made by Kayne (1994). The core of antisymmetry is the unification of the two fundamental dimensions of syntax: hierarchical structure and linear ordering of the constituents of a sentence. As a consequence, antisymmetry is more restrictive than previous approaches to syntactic analysis in terms of the theoretical apparatus allowed.

Evidently, this reduction in available mechanisms is a potentially important advance because it makes for a more highly restrictive syntactic theory. Nevertheless, it poses a challenge for the field. Those analyses of empirical facts that had depended until now upon theoretical apparatus barred by antisymmetry must be replaced if the proposal is accepted. Most relevant for this study, a number of these now eliminated mechanisms have been widely assumed in syntactic analyses of Romance until now. At the same time, the plausibility of the theory depends upon the superiority of the alternative analyses. In the end, the success of the new theory rests in good part on the success of these new explanations as much as the explanations depend on the theory. Because of this interdependence, it is important to have a clear idea of the theoretical issues involved.

1.2 Background: Hierarchical Structure and Linear Order

Syntacticians have long distinguished between hierarchical relations and linear order. In generative grammar, hierarchical realtions have traditionally been encoded under the X’-schema as in (1).¹

1. 

Under this schema, the hierarchical arrangement of phrases corresponds to one where every phrase is made up of a head and a complement, which together make an intermediate constituent. This constituent and the specifier form a maximal projection XP. This pattern has been taken to apply to lexical categories (i.e., adjectives, nouns, prepositions, adverbs, and verbs) (Chomsky 1970, Jackendoff 1977, Speas 1990). Recently, it has been extended to complementizers, inflection, and agreement (Pollock 1989, Chomsky 1986).

The other important notion, the order in which constituents appear, has been considered to be a product of language-specific grammars. This less universal approach follows from contrasts such as those between (2) and (3).

(2) a. from Tokyo

b. Sandra hit Mary

(3) a. Tokyo kara (Japanese)

Tokyo from

b. Sandra-ga Mary -o but - ta. (Japanese)

Sandra Mary hit

In these examples, languages such as English and Japanese appear to be mirror images of each other, English being head initial and Japanese head final. Given such variations, it has traditionally been assumed that the hierarchical arrangement between head and complement can have two symmetrical realizations in linear terms. That is, the head may precede as in English, or it can follow the complement as in Japanese:

4

Thus, linear order and hierarchical structure have been taken to be disconnected. To appreciate the radical nature of antisymmetry, it is worth noting that separate treatments of constituent order and hierarchical structure have been a constant in generative linguistics. Although the specific formalizations of both facets of phrase structure have changed considerably over time, there have been few if any attempts at unification.

For example, in its early stages Transformational Grammar encoded both relations through different notations in phrase structure rules. A phrase structure rule such as (5) States that an NP dominates a determiner and a noun, the hierarchal relation being indicated by the arrow. In the same rule the precedence relations were indicated by the ˜ symbol. So the determiner precedes the noun.

5 NP —> Det ˜ N

This over-all separation of hierarchy and linear order was preserved in the development of nontransformational approaches such as GPSG and HPSG. Gazdar, Klein, Pullum, and Sag (1985) and Pollard and Sag (1994) propose Immediate Dominance rules (ID), which express hierarchical relations, and linear precedence statements (LP), to account for order. The same rule (5) would be expressed by the two rules in (6) and (7). The Symbol “—>“ exclusively signifies dominance, whereas “<“ indicates precedence.

6 NP —> Det, N (ID Rule)

7 Det < N (LP Statement)

The GB framework preserved the same separation through the X’ schema presented above. This format expressed that a maximal projection (XP) dominates an intermediate projection (X’) and a XP (a Spec) (Rule 8a). It also expressed the fact that X’ dominates a head and a complement (Rule 8b)

8 a. XP→ XP(Spec) , X’

b. X’→ X⁰, XP (Complement)

In this approach, hierarchy has been explored with an eye to universals, while variation in order has been accounted for by parameters (Chomsky 1986, pag 91 fn 1). For example the difference between English and Japanese with respect to the order of complements and heads was expressed by the Head Parameter. The Head Parameter States that heads precede their complements in English, but heads follow their complement in Japanese. Travis (1989) takes a further step and proposes that linearity is not only determined by the Head Parameter. She extends concept of linearity to other modules of grammar. On this view, case assignment as well as theta role assignment are sensitive to what it is called directionality. Different settings for the directionality determine different typologies of languages.

1.3 Some Inadequacies of the Symmetric View

Evidently, in all these approaches, hierarchical relations and linearity are dissociated. Under these views symmetric orders for the same hierarchical relations are crucially not excluded. Thus, we expect the following possible four realizations of the Spec Head Compl template in the different grammars.

9

1.3.4 The Asymmetry of Specifiers

Kayne (1994) shows that this way of conceiving UG is too permissive; natural languages are less symmetrical than this pattern predicts. One asymmetry involves the position of the specifiers in phrase structure. Because complements may appear either before or after the head, it might be expected that the specifier would be capable of a similar mirror-image pattern. However, in human language, specifiers typically appear initially; the predominant orders are Spec-Head-Compl and Spec-Compl-Head.

For example, subjects, which are in the specifier position of a verb phrase, precede the verb and complement far more often than they follow them. Languages with a predominantly subject-verb-object (S V O) order—such as English—and subject-object-verb (S O V) order—such as in Japanese—are quite common. However, languages with a predominant order of object-verb-subject (O V S) and verb—object-subject (V O S)—are, on the other hand, “excessively rare” as pointed...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The V S O /V O S Alternation in Spanish
• 3 Focus and Post-verbal Subjects in Romance
• 4 Inversion in Interrogatives in Spanish and Catalan
• 5 Left Dislocated Subjects and Pro-drop
• References
• Index