The extended verb phrase: IP*
4.3 Licensing DP*s within IP*
4.3.1 Quantifier float
In §3.2.4 we saw tout ‘all’ functioning as a bare DP* and as a predeter-miner within a larger definite DP*. In this section, we investigate the syntactic mobility of both bare and predeterminer tout, that is, its ability to occupy IP*-internal positions. For example, in the absence of a marked intonation pattern, bare direct-object tout appears to the left of an infinitive or past/present participle, as in
In parallel to leftward QF of tout, its negative equivalent, rien ‘nothing’ (§3.5), also most
25
naturally precedes infinitives and past participles, as in (i):
(i) a. J’ai rien vu – . b. rien voir – c. en rien faisant I-have nothing seen nothing see in nothing doing
‘I didn’t see anything.’ ‘to see nothing’ ‘by doing nothing’
In makes sense, therefore, to assume that the IP* syntax of bare tout matches that of rien.
While in the unmarked language, personne ‘nobody’ isn’t subject to QF, as in (ii), in some Eastern varieties it appears to be, as in (iii) (Gadet 2003; Wolf 2000: 698):
(ii) a. J’ai vu personne. b. Je veux voir personne.
I-have seen nobody I want see no nobody
‘I didn’t see anyone.’ ‘I don’t want to see anyone.’
(iii) a. %J’ai personne vu. b. %Je veux personne voir.
I-have nobody seen I want nobody see
= (iia) = (iib)
However, the pattern illustrated in (iii) may be less a peculiarity of personne in these varieties than a property of IP* verb syntax in these varieties generally, which shows independent signs of Germanic influence. Compare the standard examples in (iv) with those in (v):
(iv) a. J’ai fini le travail. b. Je le laisse regarder la télé.
I-have finished the work I him let watch the tv
‘I’ve finished the work.’ ‘I let him watch tv.’
(v) a. %J’ai le travail fini. b. %Je le laisse la télé regarder.
I-have the work finished I him let the tv watch
= (iva) = (ivb)
(23), rather than to the right:
(23) a. J’ai tout vu – . b. tout voir – c. en tout lisant –
I have all seen all see in all reading
‘I saw everything.’ ‘to see everything’ ‘by reading everything’
Postverbal tout is natural with focal stress, only (Cinque 1999: 219 fn. 30), as in (24):
(24) a. J’ai vu TOUT. b. voir TOUT c. en lisant TOUT
I have seen all see all in reading all
‘I saw everything.’ ‘to see everything’ ‘by reading everything’
The phenomenon illustrated in (23) is known as (leftward) quantifier float, or QF.25 W ith finite verbs, bare direct-object tout is postverbal, irrespective of whether or not it bears focal stress, as in (25):
(25) a. Je vois tout. b. Je vois TOUT.
I see all I see all
‘I can see everything.’ ‘I can see everything.’
Given the model of IP* structure in §4.1, and the conclusions reached in §4.2 about V-movement patterns, these data can be captured by concluding that (unstressed) bare tout raises to an IP*-internal SpecFP position above (and therefore to the left
To account for focally stressed postverbal bare tout in (24) and (25b), we might conclude:
26
either (a) that stressed bare tout remains in VP*; or (b) that it raises to a VP*-peripheral SpecFocusP position; or (c) it raises to SpecFP like unstressed bare tout but that the remnant clause below FP fronts (Cinque 1999).
Examples like (28) aren’t actually hard to find, but are usually attributed to performance
27
errors. See also example (32) on page 116.
But see the pragmatic difference discussed in the context of (20a, b). A corollary of this
28
pragmatic difference is mentioned by De Cat (2000) in respect of (ia, b):
(i) a. Tous les navires ont chaviré. b. Les navires ont tous chaviré.
all the vessels have sunk the vessels have all sunk
‘All the vessels sank.’ ‘The vessels all sank.’
In (ia) a group reading is preferred (the vessels not only all sank but they all sank together);
in (ib) a distributive reading is preferred (the vessels all sank but they did so independently of each other).
of) the positions occupied by infinitives and participles but below (and therefore to the right of) the position occupied by finite verbs. The SpecFP position to which26
PlCompletive
bare tout raises is located between Asp and Voice in (3).
A more complex QF situation is found when tout is non-bare and becomes detached from the rest of PreDetP. W hen tout does this, it’s called a floating quantifier (FQ), and was illustrated in (20a, b) on page 111 in §4.3. Consider the examples in (26):
(26) a. Toutes les filles ont rigolé. b. Les filles ont toutes rigolé.
all the girls have laughed the girls have all laughed
‘All the girls laughed.’ ‘The girls all laughed.’
The underlined subject DP* in (26a) is a PreDetP which has the simplified structure in (27) (§3.2.4) and has raised out of its VP*-internal è position to SpecIP* (§4.3):
PreDetP DefP
(27) [ toutes [ les filles]]
The near synonymous (26b) illustrates rightward QF. A number of properties of (26b) are noteworthy. First, the same morphological agreement between the FQ and DefP is found in (26a) and (26b). Second, although the FQ can appear in the two positions illustrated in (26a, b), it can’t appear in both positions simultaneously, as shown in (28):27
(28) *Toutes les filles ont toutes rigolé.
all the girls have all laughed
Third, (26a) and (26b) are nearly synonymous. Taken together, these properties28 suggest that the derivation of (26a) and that of (26b) have much in common. Rather than assuming some kind of rightward movement implied by the name rightward QF, it’s standardly assumed: (a) that the DefP and the FQ form a PreDetP constituent like (27) underlyingly in both (26a) and (26b); (b) that PreDetP raises from VP* to some SpecFP position between the position occupied by the aspectual auxiliary and that occupied by the past participle; and (c) that DefP is then extracted
The discussion in the text of QF supports the analysis in §3.2.4 of predeterminer tout as
29
a head (rather than a specifier) with a definite DefP as its complement.
Where the DefP complement of the predeterminer is pronominal, QF is obligatory, as shown in (i):
(i) a. *Toutes elles ont rigolé. b. Elles ont toutes rigolé.
all they have laughed they have all laughed
‘They all laughed.’
A particularly interesting case is represented by the proform on. The agreement peculiarities of on are discussed in §4.4.4. In the example of QF in (ii), on has been separated from tous.
However, while tous is clearly PL, on triggers SG agreement on the verb:
(ii) On va tous mourir.
one go.SG all.PL die
‘We’re all going to die.’
In marked varieties, an FQ can float off a non-pronominalised (in)direct object, as in (i):
30
from PreDetP and raises to SpecIP*, as shown in (29), stranding the FQ in SpecFP:
(29) IP*
ru Spec I*N
g fi
DefPj I*E . . .
g g i
les filles ont FP
wo
PreDetPi FN
tu fh
Spec PreDetN F . . .
g tu h
tj PreDet DefP FP*
g g h
toutes tj FN fi rigolé . . . t . . .i
Given that the topmost specifier position is an escape hatch (§3.2.4), DefP first raises to SpecPreDetP, and then out of PreDetP altogether. I return to the nature29 of FP below.
Consider now the examples in (30):
(30) a. Jean les a tous lus. b. Jean leur a tous téléphoné.
J. them has all.M.PL read J. to.them has all.M.PL called
‘J. read them all.’ ‘J. phoned them all.’
Here, the FQ has floated off an (in)direct object. Unlike the subject in (26b), the (in)direct objects in (30) have been pronominalised as clitics (§4.4). In fact, Q F from an (in)direct object is generally only possible if the object cliticises. This30
(i) a. %J’avais toutes fait les quêtes. b. %Elle a pas tout fait le concert en play back.
I-had all done the collections she has not all done the concert in play back
‘I had done all the collections.’ ‘She didn’t lipsynch the entire concert.’
See also De Cat’s (2000: 4) examples from Québécois in (ii), where the FQ is pronounced [tut], irrespective of the ö features of the antecedent:
(ii) a. Il a [tut] pris les crayons. b. Il a [tut] mangé les écrevisses.
he has all taken the pencils he has all eaten the crayfish
‘He took all the pencils.’ ‘He ate all the crayfish.’
The data in (i) and (ii) in footnote 30 are therefore problematic and remain on the research
31
agenda for the time being.
constraint can be explained in terms of the analysis of cliticisation in §4.4, whereby a clitic is a functional head which is licensed by a non-overt DP* raising to its specifier position. Assume that the FP hosting the clitic, the FP hosting the FQ and the FP responsible for case licensing a non-pronominalised (in)direct-object DP*
are hierarchically structured as in (31):
IP* CliticP FP Agr(I)OP
(31) . . . [ . . . [ . . . [ . . . [ . . . ]]]]
If the (in)direct-object DP* fails to pronominalise and remains in Spec(I)OP, it doesn’t pass through SpecFP and so doesn’t license QF; it’s only by pronominalis-ing, and therefore raising to SpecCliticP via SpecFP that QF is licensed. Of course, since the case-checking position of a subject DP* is SpecIP*, which is even higher than SpecCliticP, the configuration required for QF is produced irrespective of whether or not the subject pronominalises.31
I turn now to the nature of SpecFP in (29), that is, the position occupied by FQs and bare direct-object tout. T he non-standard example in (32), in which there are two FQs, suggests that FQs aren’t associated with a unique position:
(32) %les empereurs qui sont tous déjà tous en train de faire le spectacle the emperors who are all already all in train of do the show
‘the emperors who are all already all doing the show’
Cinque (1999: 119–20) presents empirical evidence suggesting that FQs occupy dedicated positions within IP* depending on whether they are related to the subject, direct or indirect object, and that each of these positions is distinct from that occupied by bare direct-object tout. The notion that distinct positions are available for subject- and (in)direct-object-related FQs is based on ordering restrictions found when FQs co-occur, as in the examples in (33), after Cinque (1999: 116):
S IO S IO IO S
(33) a. Les filles leur ont toutes tous parlé hier. (*tous toutes ) the girls to.them have all.F all.M spoken yesterday
‘All of the girls spoke to all of them yesterday.’
S DO DO S
b. Les filles les ont toutes tous lus. (*tous toutes ) the girls them have all.F all.M read
‘All of the girls read all of them.’
Native-speaker informants I have consulted found examples (36) and (37) somewhat odd.
32
It’s interesting, and perhaps significant, that the disputed FQ positions both precede negative adverbials. The ‘problem’ may be not so much that these positions can’t host FQs, but rather, as Cinque himself conjectures (1999: 120), that scope properties allow negation naturally to interact with FQs, and that this interaction requires negation to dominate an FQ.
IO DO DO IO
c. Je les leur ai tous toutes montrées. (*toutes tous ) I them to.them have all.M all.F shown
‘I showed all of them to all of them.’
The data show that FQs can co-occur and that, when they do, a subject FQ must precede direct- and indirect-object FQs alike, and that an indirect-object FQ must precede a direct-object FQ.
The notion that the positions occupied by FQs are distinct from the one occupied by bare direct-object tout derives from two sources. First, as expected given (33b, c), FQs necessarily precede bare direct-object tout:
IO DO IO
(34) a. Je leur ai tous tout montré. (*tout tous ) I to.them have all.M all shown
‘I showed everything to all of them.’
S DO S
b. Les filles ont toutes tout montré. (*tout toutes ) the girls have all.F all shown
‘All of the girls showed everything.’
Second, and more significantly, FQs and bare direct-object tout have divergent orderings with respect to complètement ‘completely’ and toujours ‘always’: while FQs precede, bare direct-object tout follows (Cinque 1999: 119):
(35) a. Nous l’avons tout complètement mangé. (*complètement tout) we it-have all completely eaten
‘We completely ate it all.’
b. Nous avons complètement tout mangé. (*tout complètement) we have completely all eaten
‘We completely ate everything.’
Cinque (1999: 120) suggests that FQs can’t intervene between déjà and plus.
However, the example in (36) was found on the Internet:
(36) Nous ne serions déjà tous plus de ce monde.
we NEG would.be already all no.more of this world
‘We would already no longer be for this world.’
Cinque also disputes the existence of an FQ position preceding pas. However,32 example (37), found on the Internet, again suggests otherwise:
(37) Ils n’ont tous pas ces caractères antiques.
they NEG-have all not these characters antiquated
‘They don’t all have these antiquated characters.’
Attributing FQs to their own IP*-internal FPs neatly accounts for De Cat’s (2000)
33
observation that FQs can appear in a sentence even when the sentence already contains one example from each possible class of adverbial.
Cinque (1999: 219 fn. 33) claims that FQ isn’t available in the presence of (ne) plus.5 34
However, the example in (i) suggests otherwise:
(i) . . . enseignants . . . qui n’ont plus toujours tous à l’esprit la relation entre X et Y.
teachers who NEG-have more always all to the-mind the relation between X and Y
‘. . . teachers who no longer all always have in mind the relationship between X and Y.’
The model in (38a, b) is possibly too flexible. De Cat (2000: 13–14) gives the examples
35
in (i), where toutes is not ambiguous (cf. (ii), where it is), and this suggests that the FQ positions can’t all freely be associated with all arguments:
i i/*j j
(i) a. Elles vont toutes gentiment les caresser.
they go all nicely them caress
‘They’re all going to caress them nicely.’
i *i/j j
b. Elles vont gentiment toutes les caresser.
they go nicely all them caress
‘They’re going to caress them all nicely.’
i i/j j
(ii) Elles vont toutes les caresser.
they go all them caress
= (ia) or (ib) (modulo gentiment)
Putting these observations together, we get the partial ordering of clausal specifiers in (38a), where the numbered FQ positions are to be understood as those
1 3
areas within IP* where the three ordered FQs in (38b) can appear (FQ and FQ are in brackets because their existence is disputed by Cinque 1999: 120):33
1 2 3 4 5
(38) a. (FQ )>pas>FQ >déjà>(FQ )>plus>FQ >toujours>guère>FQ34 >complète-ment>tout>bien
S IO DO
b. FQ >FQ >FQ
If we’re right to assume that the positions occupied by FQs are those positions through which argument DP*s can transit on their way to SpecCliticP, then (38) paints a rich picture of the IP* syntax of argument DP*s.35