Cartographies and the locality of selection
4.5 Iterated patterns
It may in fact have been the case that originally unstructured,
‘‘generic’’ concepts ‘‘acquired’’ structure or got diversiWed by virtue of being grafted onto independently generated structure. That is, once ‘‘thrown’’ into the syntax engine, a concept can be iterated by Merge, and Wnd itself mapped onto a variety of hierarchies at SEM (and PHON). This may have been how ‘‘new’’ concepts originated (more appropriately, how concepts acquired new modes of presen-tation). (Hinzen 2007 would characterize this state of aVairs as language having been ontologically innovative.)
8 Alternatively, Principle A, B, and D (see Lasnik 1989).
For instance, consider the fact that the very same ‘‘concept’’ (or conceptual realm) may acquire diVerent ‘‘Xavors’’ depending on where it is expressed in the structure. Take the concept ‘‘Person.’’
Say the latter gets lexicalized (/digitized) as the abstract feature p with its three possible values {+,, ø}. p clearly manifests itself in all three portions of the clause (V’s extended projection), with an orientation that is characteristic of Merge. Thus, at the thematic/vP level, p becomes argument structure: Agent [point of origin], Pa-tient [end point], and ‘‘Other’’ [‘‘adjoined’’]. At the InXectional level, p becomes 1st person [point of origin], 2nd person [target], and 3rd person [‘‘adjoined’’]. Finally, at the Complementizer level, p encodes Speech roles (Speaker [origin], Hearer [target], Logophor9 [other]), of the type studied by Speas and Tenny (2003) to charac-terize the encoding of evidentiality, morphologically expressed in many languages (on speech roles, see also Sigurðsson 2004).
The claim I just made about p is very similar to Hornstein and Uriagereka’s (2002) claim (cf. Chapter 2) that the structure of quan-tiWers, with their scope and restriction, may be nothing more than argument structure (a transitive verb) at a higher level of structure (see also Pietroski 2005, Herburger 2000, and Larson 2005).
As a matter of fact, several authors have already observed that various units such as Topic, Focus, and Agreement appear to be expressed at various clausal junctures (C-level, InX-level, and V-level) (see Hallman 2000; Sportiche 1998; Koopman 2005; Belletti 2004a, 2005; Jayaseelan 2001; Manzini and Savoia 2004; and Poletto 2006). For example, what was once AGRP (Pollock 1989) was soon decomposed into AGRsP (for subject agreement), AGRoP (for ob-ject agreement), and ‘‘AGRcP’’ (for complementizer agreement (Shlonsky 1994; Cardinaletti and Roberts 1991, 2002)). This amounts to treating AGRP as an iterated category, along the clausal skeleton (extended projection of V), in a way very reminiscent of the distri-bution of adverbs in the basic X-bar schema (cf. (4)).
9 Interestingly, the category ‘‘logophor’’ again decomposes into {Source, {Self, {Pivot}}} (based on Speas and Tenny 2003).
(46) CP AGRcP j
IP AGRsP j
vP AGRoP
Perhaps the most dramatic instance of such an iterative pattern is the one identiWed by Butler (forthcoming) in the context of the Cinque hierarchy.
Cinque (1999) put forth the hierarchy in (47) to capture co-occurrence restrictions among adverbs and inXectional heads—a hierarchy that Cinque stresses is only partial and temporary.10 (I have tried to illustrate each functional head by associating it with an adverb exemplifying it.)
(47) [frankly Moodspeech act[fortunately Moodevaluative[allegedly Moodevidential
[probably Modepistemic[once Tpast[then Tfuture[perhaps Moodirrealis
[necessarily Modnecessity[possibly Modpossibility[usually Asphabitual
[again Asprepetitive(I)
[often Aspfrequentative(I) [intentionally Modvolitional[quickly Aspcelerative(I) [already Tanterior
[no longer Aspterminative[still Aspcontinuative[always Aspperfect(?) [just Aspretrospective
[soon Aspproximative[brieXy Aspdurative[characteristically(?) Aspgeneric/
progressive
[almost Aspprospective[completely AspSgCompletive(I) [tutto (Italian) AspPlCompletive
[well Voice [fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often Aspfreqentative(II)
[completely AspSgCompletive(II) ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
(Cinque 1999: 106)
At Wrst the hierarchy in (47) appears to have little to do with the tripartite divisions discussed so far in this study, but as Butler (forthcoming) notes, Cinque’s labels hide the iterative pattern which Butler characterizes as in (48).11
10 For an attempt to capture these restrictions from basic semantic principles, see Fortuny (2006).
11 The claim that Cinque’s hierarchy may be an iteration of a tripartite division was made by Enc¸ (2004) on the basis of Turkish data. Thanks to Meltem Kelepir for bringing this work to my attention.
(48) Modal layer
[frankly Moodspeech act[fortunately Moodevaluative[allegedly Moodevidential[probably Modepistemic
Temporal layer [once Tpast[then Tfuture
Modal layer
[perhaps Moodirrealis[necessarily Modnecessity[possibly Modpossibility
Aspectual layer
[usually Asphabitual[again Asprepetitive(I) [often Aspfrequentative(I) Modal layer
[intentionally Modvolitional
Temporal/Aspectual layer
[quickly Aspcelerative(I) [already Tanterior[no longer Aspterminative
[still Aspcontinuative[always Aspperfect(?) [just Aspretrospective[soon Asp
proximative[brieXy Aspdurative[characteristically(?) Aspgeneric/progressive
[almost Aspprospective[completely AspSgCompletive(I) [tutto (Italian) Asp
PlCompletive
Modal layer [well Voice Aspectual layer
[fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [often Aspfreqentative(II) [completely AspSgCompletive(II)
From Butler’s perspective, the now familiar X-bar schema reappears.
Cinque’s hierarchy boils down to an instance of the Mood/Tense/
Aspect triplet, used iteratively, with the Aspectual layer ‘‘thicker’’ at the bottom (closer to the VP-domain, traditionally associated with Aspect; see Borer 2005 and Ramchand forthcoming, among many others), and the Modal layer ‘‘thicker’’ at the top (closest to CP, traditionally associated with Mood; see Rizzi 1997, among many others).12
12 Adjectives inside nominals could be handled in a similar fashion. Scott (2002) proposes a very rich hierarchy of adjectival modiWers inside the noun phrase (i).
(i) Ordinal> Cardinal > Subject comment > Evidential > Size > Length > Height >
Speed > Depth > Width > Temperature > Wetness > Age > Shape > Color
>Nationality/Origin > Material
Laenzlinger (2005) shows on the basis of French data that Scott’s hierarchy (with some refinements) can be cut down into roughly five classes, reproduced in (ii).
(ii) [QuantifOrdinal> Cardinal > [Speaker-Orient.Subject comment> Evidential > [Scalar Phys. Prop.Size> Length > Height > Speed > Depth > Width > [MeasureWeight>
A similar phenomenon of iteration may be at work in the context of negation. The most comprehensive cartographic study of negation I am aware of is Zanuttini (1997). Zanuttini examines the locus of negative expressions in Romance languages, and Wnds quite a bit of variation, ultimately leading her to postulate four distinct Negation heads in the clausal structure. SpeciWcally, taking the inXected verb (in InX8) as her reference point, Zanuttini posits a pre-verbal NEGP and three post-verbal NEGPs, as schematized in (49). (All examples are from Zanuttini 1997.)
(49) [NEGP-1 [TP [NEGP-2 . . . [NEGP-3 . . . [NEGP-4]]]]]
NEGP-1 will host pre-verbal markers like standard Italian non (50).
(50) Gianni non le mangia [Standard Italian]
Gianni not them eats
‘Gianni doesn’t eat them’
NEGP-2 corresponds to the presuppositional negative markers like Piedmontese pa, which precede adverbs like ‘already’ (51).
Temperature> Wetness > Age > [Non-scalar Phys. Prop.Shape> Color > Nationality/
Origin> Material]]]]] Four of the Wve classes of adjectival modiWers proposed by Laenzlinger correspond rather closely to the three levels of functional extensions in the nominal domain (DP, NumberP, nP), plus the root (see Svenonius (forthcoming) for arguments that adjectives directly modify the root).
(iii) a. DP ! Speaker orientation
b. NumberP ! Scalar physical property c. nP ! Measure
d. N (root) ! Non-scalar physical property
The members of the Wfth dimension (ordinals and numerals) in Laenzlinger’s analysis also arguably Wnd their place in the nominal domain, as instances of NumberP.
Let me close this note with two observations. First note how the mapping in (iii) mirrors the mapping found in the sentential domain, where CP expresses discourse relation and speaker orientation, IP ‘‘inXected’’ elements, similar to degrees, and vP/VP more inherent notions.
Second, it is worth mentioning that just like Laenzlinger reduced Scott’s rich hierarchy of adjectives into Wve classes, Tenny (2000) also claims that Cinque’s rich hierarchy of adverbs falls into Wve classes. This may be yet another reXex of X-bar-like organization, with adjoined material (adverbs/adjectives) Wtting into the X-bar schema at Wve loci: below X8, above X’’, and along the three levels of projection (X8, X’, X’’).
(51) a l’ e pa gia parti [Piedmontese]
Clitic Sbj.is not already left
‘He hasn’t already left’
NEGP-3 is the projection of Piedmontese nen, which is lower than the projection hosting adverbs like ‘already,’ but higher than the projection hosting items like ‘anymore’ (52).
(52) A l’ avia gia nen vulu ’ntlura [Piedmontese]
Clitic Sbj.had already not wanted then
‘Already at that time he had not wanted to’
Finally, NEGP-4 is the projection of Milanese no, lower than the projection hosting adverbs like ‘always’ (53).
(53) L’a semper paga no i tas [Milanese]
Sbj.has always paid not the taxes
‘It’s always been the case that he hasn’t paid the taxes’
As Zanuttini (2001: 513) observes, the NEGPs illustrated above are projections hosting negative particles, many of which are invariant (e.g., Russian ne), though some are sensitive to mood, tense, or aspect (Hungarian ne/nem; Arabic lam/la). In addition to negative particles, languages resort to two other strategies to negate a sentence. Polynesian languages, for example, negate the whole clause by means of a marker that has the characteristics of a verb taking a sentential complement.
Consider (54), from Tongan.
(54) Na’e ’ikai [ke ’alu ’a Siale] [Tongan]
AspNeg Asp-go AbsoluteCharlie
‘Charlie didn’t go’
Other languages use negative markers that have the characteristics of a Wnite auxiliary. This is the case in Evenki (55).
(55) Bi [e]-[e]-w dukuwun-ma duku-ra [Evenki]
I-NegPast-1 sg letter-Obj write-Part
‘I didn’t write a letter’
Putting all this information together, we obtain the following pic-ture. Negative markers of the embedding sort (54/55) can occur either at the CP-juncture (54), or at the vP-juncture (55).13 In addition, negative particles can adjoin to the Wnite verb in InX8.
Alternatively, they can occur below InX8. In the latter case, the negative particle can be associated with presupposition (closest to InX8), or be discourse-neutral, or be associated with focus (farthest from InX8).
The picture that emerges could be represented schematically in (56).
(56) NEGP
CP
NEGP
IP NEGP (presupposition)
NEGP NEGP (discourse-neutral)
nP NEGP (focus)
Viewed from this perspective the mobility of NEGP is very remin-iscent of what one Wnds with AGR, which iterates around the core sentential units (V’s extended projection), and can in turn be de-composed into an ordered triplet ([Person [Number [Gender]]]) the same way the lower NEGP appears to be (in Romance).
Perhaps the decompositionality of the lower NEGP can be under-stood as indicating the fact that NEG8 is like French ne (often phonetically null), which is supported by a particle like pas, which in turn could be hierarchically organized along a standard X-bar schema.14
13 On auxiliaries as v8, see den Dikken (1994) and Bosˇkovic´ (2001).
14 Negative markers like ne and pas are repeatedly used to illustrate ‘‘Jespersen’s Cycle.’’ The latter describes the historical development of negative forms in a variety of languages such as French, where the original negative form (ne) underwent two stages of weakening, the Wrst one requiring support of another element (pas) to express negation, and the second stage rendering the original negative form entirely optional.
It may not be too much of a stretch to see in this the workings of X-bar syntax: From a full-blown element (XP), ne became a head (X8) requiring a complement, and then became optional material (X’).
At any rate, the similarity between NEGP and AGRP is well worth exploring further. Both appear to act like adjoined categories, grafted onto the clausal skeleton, as shown in (57):
(57) CP
IP NEGP/AGRP
nP
Interestingly, in the cartographic literature, agreement and negation have been grouped together because of their problematic character.
As both Cinque (1999) and Julien (2002) have observed, the beau-tiful hierarchy that emerges from the extraordinary consistency found across languages for both aYx ordering and adverb place-ment (extended to restructuring predicates in Cinque 2006) breaks down as soon as agreement and negation are factored in. Summar-izing results from the cartographic literature, Svenonius (2007a:
265) notes that ‘‘[o]rders of T-Asp-V, T-Caus-V, and so on were demonstrated . . . to show great cross-linguistic regularities. Neg-ation [and agreement] provide a startlingly diVerent picture.’’
The framework developed here, which is nothing more than exploiting the X-bar schema in the context of groupings of projec-tions, can make sense of the odd behavior of AGRP and NEGP.15 Both are ‘‘outside’’ the clausal skeleton, on a parallel plane (like adjoined material typically is). Their somewhat erratic linearization pattern comes from the fact that they can be ‘‘collapsed’’ onto the clausal skeleton at various junctures.
In this sense they do not pattern with the adjuncts discussed in Cinque (1999) because these, as we saw above, express notions
15 One could take the problematic nature of agreement and negation as an argument in favor of Chomsky’s (1995) proposal that agreement is not a legitimate projection.
Chomsky defends his claim by pointing to the fact that AGRP consists of uninterpret-able features only. While this may be true of AGRP, it is hard to see how this could extend to sentential negation (which is interpretable/interpreted). Accordingly, Chomsky’s suggestion would not enable us to solve the hierarchical mapping problem at hand in a suYciently general fashion.
directly related to the core clausal skeleton. That is, Cinque’s adjuncts are not on the same plane as NEGP and AGRP.
The main reason why I think Cinque fails to Wnd unity among adjuncts, agreement markers, and negative markers is because he tried to map them all onto a single syntactic projection line. The perspective oVered in this chapter is that the organization of adverbs, verbal aYxes, agreement markers and negative markers do converge, but in parallel dimensions. All of these dimensions ultimately collapse onto a single ‘‘line’’ when syntax gets mapped onto the interfaces, but at that point, we expect variation, since the diVerent dimensions can be integrated into one another at diVer-ent juncture points.