Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of Sigma

Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of Sigma1

ΑΝΑ-MARIA MARTINS

Abstract

In Romance, enclisis in tensed clauses correlates with the possibility of VP-deletion. To accountfor thisfact, it is hypothesized that both phenomena emergein languages where the functional category Sigmaf ) — the locus for Affirma-tion/Negation — has strong V-features (Old Romance, Modern Portuguese andModern Galician), whereas such phenomena are absentfrom languages where Σhas weak V-features (Modern Spanish, Modern Catalan, Modern Italian andModern French). The null VP in the VP-deletion construction is licensed in aSpec-head type relation to strong Σ, Σ containing V-features. Enclisis is theoutcome ofverb movement to Σ in the overt syntax, clitics being left-adjoined toAgrSubj (which Σ dominates); verb movement in the overt syntax only takes placewhen the V-features ο/Σ are strong.

Introduction

Romance languages such s Portuguese and Galician show enclisis (the orderverb-clitic) in matrix tensed clauses, in contrast to languages such s Spanish,Catalan, French and Italian, which show proclisis (the order clitic-verb) in this

I want to express my gratitude to Juan Uriagereka for very helpful discussion throughout theresearch that led to this paper. I am also grateful to Jan Schroten, Jaume Sol , Johan Rooryck,Ellen Thompson, the audience of Going Romance 1993 (Utrecht), the audience of the SecondMinimalist Fest (College Park, 1994) and two Probus reviewers for data and invaluablecomments. Thanks to Susan Powers for helping me with putting the final text in fair English.

Probus 6 (1994), 173-205 0921 -4771/94/006 173© Walter de Gruyter

Brought to you by | Michigan State UniversityAuthenticated | 35.8.11.2

Download Date | 9/26/13 1:28 AM

174 A. M. Martins

same context. Interestingly, VP-deletion occurs in the same set of languageswhich have enclisis (Portuguese and Galician), and not in the languages whichdo not allow enclisis in tensed clauses (Spanish, Catalan, French and Italian).Examples (1) to (6), below, show the relevant facts:

(1) Portuguesea. *Lhe deste o livro? *Proclisis

him gave the book'Did you give him the book?'

b. Deste-lhe o livro? Enclisisgave him the book?

c. Sim, dei. VP-deletionyes gave'Yes, I did.'

d. Sim, dei- Iho.yes gave him-it

(2) Galiciana. *Lle de ehe s o livro? *Proclisis


b. Decheslle o livro? Enclisisgave him the book

c. Sit din. VP-deletionyes gave'Yes, I did.'

d. Si, dinllo.yes gave-him-it

(3) Spanisha. Le diste el libro ? Proclisis


b. *Distele el libro? *Enclisisgave him the book

c. *Si dl * VP-deletionyes gave'Yes, I did.'

d. S i, se l o di.yes him it gave



Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature ofSigma 175

(4) Catalana. Li has donat el llibre? Proclisis

him have given the book'Did you give him the book?'

b. *Has -U donat el llibre? *Enclisishave him given the book

c. *ST, he donat. *VP-deletionyes, have given'Yes, I did.'

d. S i, Γ hi he donat.yes, him it have given

(5) Frencha. Lui as-tu donnele livre? Proclisis

him have you given the book'Did you give him the book?'

b. *As-lui tu donnele livre? *Enclisishave him you given the book

c. *Oui,j'ai donne. * VP-deletionyes I have given'Yes, I did.'

d. Oui, je le lui ai donne.yes I it him have given

(6) Italiana. Gli hai dato U libro? Proclisis

him have given the book'Did you give him the book?'

b. */fai gli dato il libro? *Enclisishave him given the book

c. * , ho dato. *VP-deletionyes have given'Yes, I did.'

d. Si, gliel' ho dato.yes him-it have given

Assuming the minimalist framework of Chomsky (1993), in this paper Iexplain the cross-linguistic correlation between enclisis and VP-deletion byclaiming that they both depend upon the strength of the functional categorySigma (Σ).2

Rouveret (1989: 357-360) notes and accounts for the correlation between enclisis and thepossibility of VP-deletion in European Portuguese, although from a different perspective and invery different terms.



176 Α. Μ. Martins

The paper is divided into five sections. I first show how my hypothesisaccounts for clitic placement in matrix tensed clauses in the two relevant sets oflanguages. In section 2, I review how it also accounts for the presence orabsence of VP-deletion in both groups of languages. In section 3, I show thatdiachronic evidence sheds light on the difference between the two groups ofRomance languages and gives additional support to my hypothesis. Finally, insection 4, I account for the fact that enclisis and VP-deletion do not show thesame pattern in embedded clauses; while enclisis is not permitted in embeddedclauses, VP-deletion is. A conclusion to the paper will be given in section 5.Throughout the paper, I compare Portuguese with Spanish, which I take srepresentatives of the two relevant sets of languages.

I assume the basic structure of the clause to be s in Chomsky (1993: 7), plusthe functional projection ΣΡ and Spec of TP.31 follow Laka (1990, 1991) whoproposes the functional projection ΣΡ, a projection which, in her words, "hoststruth-value operators like negation and affirmation" (Laka 1991: 3).

I argue here that, similarly to the way in which the head Neg can headits own functional projection (Kitagawa 1986; Pollock 1989), there is alsoa X° ff, which projects an Affirmation Phrase. These two heads (Negand ff) are further argued to belong in the same syntactic category,which I will call Σ. [The name Σ ... suggests the notion of Speech Act(affirmation and denial).] Thus, both NegP and AffP are claimed to bedifferent instantiations of a more abstract projection: the Σ Phrase.(Laka 1990: 86)

I also follow Laka (1990, 1991) in assuming that in the Romance languages ΣΡdominates IP. Unlike Laka, however, I assume that Σ is present in all affirmativeclauses, and not only in those involving emphasis.4 The structure of the clauseI adopt, therefore, is the one given in (7) below.

3. As for Variation across languages with respect to Spec of TP being projected or not, see Jonasand Bobaljik (1993).

4. Laka follows an idea put forward by Chomsky (1957) who proposes that there is a morphemeff (for affirmation) which induces Jo-support in the same way s negation does. In the same

spirit, Pollock (1989: note 51) suggests that the structure of the clause includes an AssertionPhrase, which parallels NegP. ff in Chomsky (1957) and ASS in Pollock (1989) stand foremphatic affirmation. As I take it, ff is, instead, like Belletti's Pos (the head of a PositivePhrase), which is not itself emphatic — emphasis resulting from Pos being specified by certainadverbs (see Belletti 1990: 39-41). As a Probus reviewer pointed out to me, also Gleitman(1965) groups Negation and Affirmation together under the label σ and proposes that σ ispresent in all clauses even when it lacks overt content.




1. Clitic placement in matrix tensed clauses

Portuguese differs from Spanish with respect to what constitutes a minimalaffirmative answer to a yes/no question. The relevant distinction is exemplifiedby the contrast between (8) and (9) below.

(8) SpanishViste a Juan?'Did you see John?'a. Si/*W

yes sawb. No

no

(9) PortugueseVisteoJoäo?'Did you see John?'a. Vi l #Sim

saw yesb. Näo

no



178 Λ. Μ. Martins

In Portuguese, in contrast to Spanish, a natural affirmative answer to a yes/noquestion consists of a bare verb, s in (9a).5 Laka (1990: 131-167) shows thatΣΡ is crucially involved in affirmative and negative replies to yes/no questions.Assuming that the elements that show up in the minimal unmarked answers in(8) and (9) head ΣΡ,6 we conclude that in Portuguese the verb (W 'saw') movedto Σ in the overt syntax. In the minimalist framework, head-movement in theovert syntax is possible only in order to check strong morphological features.Verb movement to Σ in (9a) can be accounted for by taking affirmation, inPortuguese, to be expressed by an abstract morpheme with strong features, whichis projected from the lexicon attached to the verb. Hence, because Σ, in its ffinstantiation, has strong V-features, the verb has to move to Σ for featurechecking purposes before spell-out (see Chomsky 1993: 28-30).7 I assume that

5. Sim 'yes' is a possible answer to a yes/no question in Portuguese but it is not an unmarked one.Sim s a minimal affirmative answer signals, for example, a Speaker's lack of interest in theconversation, a Speaker's surprise for being asked a certain question, or a Speaker's irony. Simonly appears s an unmarked affirmative answer when it has s its antecedent a question thatdoes not include a verb: Cafe? Sim. 'Coffee? Yes.'

6. It is not the case, however, that the element that shows up in minimal answers to yes/noquestions always heads Σ; other strategies are possible and Variation across languages is attested.Laka (1990: 154-167) shows that English yes and no exhibit properties that distinguish themfrom Spanish si and no and accordingly proposes that English yes and no are C heads, whereasSpanish si and no are Σ heads. This proposal accounts for the following contrast betweenEnglish and Spanish (the examples are from Laka 1990: 167):

(i) */ think [CP that [CP yes/no]](ii) pro creo [CP que [ΣΡ si/no]]Portuguese patterns like Spanish but has an additional possibility, a bare verb may alternate withs im 'yes':(iii) O Jo o s he o que aconteceu?

'Does John know what happened?'(iv) Acho que s he/ sim/n o.

(I) think that knows yes no(t)

The fact that sim may occur in the context in (iv) shows that it does not belong in the samecategory s English yes. On the other hand, the fact that sim does not constitute an unmarkedanswer in Portuguese suggests that sim is not a Σ head, in contrast to Spanish si. l take sim shaving adverbial character and being, therefore, an adjunct to ΣΡ — s for the categorial Statusof n o, see note 7.

In English, ΣΡ is involved in do-type affirmative and negative replies to yes/no questions, anabstract affirmative morpheme and not being the expression of Σ (in its ff and Neginstantiation respectively) in English.

7. The asymmetry between minimal negative and affirmative replies to yes/no questions found inPortuguese, only the latter involving verb movement to Σ, is due to the fact that Neg has lexicalcontent whereas ff doesn't ( ff s content is a set of morphological features) - I will laterdiscuss this matter. Such asymmetry is not found in languages like Spanish where both Neg and

ff have lexical content (verb movement to Σ being always excluded) nor in languages likeBasque where Neg and ff have both morphological character (verb movement to Σ being




always triggered). Moreover, in Basque the affirmative morpheme (ba) and the negativemorpheme (ez) are both overt. The examples below show the syntactic parallelism betweenminimal affirmative and negative replies in basque (see Laka 1990: 133-135):(i) [ badakit [AgrSubjp — (affirmative mo heme — verb 'know')

do', äs an answer to 'Do you know that?'(ii) [ ezdakit [AgrSubjp ··· (negative mo heme — verb 'know')

don't', äs an answer to 'Do you know that?'Latin was similar to basque in that the negative marker was a verbal morpheme, but differentlyfrom Basque the affirmative morpheme didn't have overt content in Latin. Sentences (iii-a) and(iii-b) are examples of unmarked answers in Latin (see Woodcock 1959: 129, from whom I takethe examples below):(iii) Rediitne paler eins!

'Has his father returned?'a. [ Rediit [AgrSubjp - 'returned'b. [ Non-rediit [AgrSubjP ... 'not returned'

Latin also had an independent negative element, the word non, which could stand alone äs anegative reply to a yes/no question. This kind of reply, however, was marked and rare (seeWoodcock 1959: 129), just in the same way that an affirmative reply with sie alone was,showing therefore that lexical non was not a head but rather, presumably, an adverbial element(like sie).

Portuguese, like Latin, has two negative markers with similar phonetic realization but differentcategorial Status. They may co-occur in negative replies, äs (iv) exemplifies:(iv) Näo} [ Näo2 [AgrSubjP [AgrSubj voltouj [TP [T y [Agr0bjP [Agl0bj tj [VP [v tj]]]]]]

no not returned'No, he hasn't returned.'

In Modern Portuguese, näo2 is an independent head, a lexical head. As for näolt I admit thatit has the same adverbial categorial Status äs Latin independent non. It is because the negativemorpheme of Latin was reanalyzed äs an independent head in Romance (a lexical head) that(v-b), below, is not good äs an answer in Portuguese (in contrast to Latin):(v) O pai dele ja voltou ?

'Has his father returned yet?'a. Näo.

notb. ?*M30 voltou.

not returnedc. Näo, näo voltou.

no not returnedIn my grammar, sentence (v-b) is out; other Portuguese Speakers, however, judge (v-b) äsacceptable; but, äs far äs I can teil, those same Speakers note a contrast between (v-b) and either(v-a) or (v-c); that is, they consider (v-a) and (v-c) better than (v-b). (Nonminimal answers toyes/no questions appear to be fully acceptable only äs amplifications to a preceding näo 'no' orsim 'yes', a fact I do not have an account for.)

Since there are two different näo's in Portuguese (see example [iv]), the question is whichone of them shows up in minimal answers to yes/no questions (like [v-a]). I assume that it isnäo2 since a minimal reply with näo does not induce the kind of marked semantic effect thatLatin adverbial non or Portuguese sim induce. Moreover, only if we assume that the element thatshows up in minimal unmarked replies to yes/no questions necessarily heads , can we



180 . . Martins

this is the case in all affirmative clauses in Portuguese. According to thisapproach, the order verb-clitic is the result of overt verb movement to .

I follow Kayne (1991, 1993) who hypothesizes that clitics left-adjoin to a X°Infl-type position and that there are no special heads for clitics. (I do not assume,however, Kayne's constraint against clitic adjunction to trace.) Furthermore,elaborating on Diesing's Mapping Hypothesis (see Diesing 1992), I take TP ästhe LF "border" separating non-specific elements (inside TP) from specificelements (scoped out of TP).8 Since clitics are specific, I accordingly proposethat clitics, in order to check a strong specific feature, left-adjoin to AgrSubj, theInfl-type head immediately outside the TP "border", in satisfaction of theShortest Movement economy principle (see Chomsky 1993: 14-18).9 When theverb raises to (which dominates AgrSubj), it goes past the clitic, deriving theorder verb-clitic, äs shown in (10):

understand that Spanish adverbial si was reanalyzed äs a head when the V-features ofbecame weak in Spanish, äs will be discussed in section 3.

8. To account for the distinct syntax of "specific" and "non-specific" DPs (in Diesing's terms,"presuppositional" and "non-presuppositional"), Diesing correlates a Heim-style semanticpartition (see Heim 1982), with a syntactic partition, in the following terms:Mapping HypothesisMaterial from VP is mapped into the Nuclear Scope [and interpreted äs non-presuppositional]Material from IP is mapped into a Restrictive Clause [and interpreted äs presuppositional]Diesing's proposnl must cruciully assume that subjects äs well äs objects may either stay insidethe VP throughout the derivation or be moved back into the VP at LF. In the minimalistframework, however, these assumptions are untenable (see Jonas and Bobaljik 1993).Furthermore, Jonas and Bolbajik (1993) show on empirical grounds that transitive postverbalsubjects in Icelandic, usually taken äs being VP-internal, are in fact external to the VP.According to Jonas and Bolbajik, Icelandic postverbal subjects are in Spec of TP while preverbalsubjects are in Spec of AgrSubjP. Since preverbal Icelandic subjects semantically contrast withpostverbal subjects in terms of specificity, I take TP, instead of VP, äs being the syntactic borderbetween specific and nonspecific elements. An additional argument for reviewing Diesing'sproposal comes from the fact that, äs Richard Kayne pointed out (1993 University of Marylandlessons), object scrambling (which affect specific DPs) involves movement to a higher positionthan AgrObjP, which is itself external to VP.

9. We can think of the specific feature associated to the clitic äs being randomly assigned to oneof the functional heads outside the TP border. Movement of the clitic higher than AgrSubj tocheck this feature, however, would violate the Shortest Movement economy principle, leadingthe derivation to crash.




(10) ΣΡ

subjj Σ'

AgrSubjP

tj AgrSubj7

^AgrSubj TP^\ Δ

cl AgrSubj (...)

O Antonio viu-Anthony saw

ohim

ontemyesterday

Spanish differs from Portuguese in having a lexical affirmative head, the wordsi, in replies to yes/no questions ( s shown in [8a]). Spanish also differs fromPortuguese, I hypothesize, in having a weak affirmative morpheme attached tothe verb in affirmative clauses that are not replies to yes/no questions. Becausethe V-features of Σ- ff are weak in Spanish, contrary to Portuguese, verb raisingto Σ is delayed until LF, in satisfaction of the principle Procrastinate (seeChomsky 1993: 30-31, 34), and hence clitics precede the verb in the overtsyntax, s represented in (11):

(11)

AntonioAnthony

0

lim

Δviosaw

ayy<

eristerday



182 A. M. Martins

With respect to the representations in (10) and (11), let me clarify that I takeSpec of to be the position where topic subjects check Case features, whileSpec of TP is the Case checking position for subjects which are not topics. Theformer are assigned topic Case, the latter are assigned nominative Case. When

is "active" for Case checking (see Chomsky 1993: 9), it bears N-featureswhich I take äs being universally strong, therefore triggering movement of thesubject to Spec of in the overt syntax.10

Looking back to (8) and (9), we observe that the contrast between Portugueseand Spanish with respect to the pattern of replies to yes/no questions reduces towhat constitutes a minimal affirmative answer to a yes/no question. As fornegative replies, Portuguese and Spanish show a similar pattern of minimalanswer. Similarly, Portuguese and Spanish do not differ from each other withrespect to clitic placement in negative clauses. In both languages, clitics precedethe verb in this context, äs is shown in (12) and (13) below:

(12) Portuguesea. O Antonio näo o viu ontem.

the Anthony not him saw yesterday'Anthony didn't see him yesterday.'

b. *O Antonio näo viu-o ontem.the Anthony not saw him yesterday

(13) Spanisha. Antonio no lo vio ayer.

Anthony not him saw yesterday'Anthony didn't see him yesterday.'

b. *Antonio no violo ayer.Anthony not saw-him yesterday

10. In languages such äs Portuguese and Spanish, preverbal subjects in matrix clauses are interpretedäs topics, in contrast to postverbal subjects which have an existential or focus Interpretation. Thesemantics of preverbal subjects, äs described by Suner (1982) for Spanish, or by Fontes (1987)for Portuguese, coincides with the semantics of subjects overtly marked äs topics in languagessuch äs Japanese and Korean (see Kuroda 1992, for Japanese, and Suh 1993, for Korean).Therefore, I hypothesize that while non-topic subjects are assigned nominative Case which ischecked by T, topic subjects are assigned topic Case which is checked by (topic Case äs welläs nominative Case being overt in some languages and covert in others). Topic marked subjectssurface in preverbal position since they move up to Spec of for feature checking purposes(the verb being in ); nominative marked subjects surface in postverbal position since checkingof their morphology ends in a position lower man (where the verb moves). When the subjectis assigned nominative Case, is inert with respect to Case (it is not associated with a Casefeature); when the subject is assigned topic Case, T is inert with respect to Case (the same waythat AgrObj is inert when one only NP requires structural Case [see Chomsky 1993: 9-10]).This issue is addressed in Martins (1994).




A hypothesis to account for these facts would be that Neg has weakV-features in Spanish and in Portuguese s well:

(14) [ΣΡ Neg [AgrSubjp AgrSubj+VW +VS

Agl0bjp AgrObj [VP V+VS +VS [Vroot-AgrObj-T-AgrSubj-Neg]t

movement at LF movement before spell-out

I will make the stronger hypothesis, though, that the strong and weak value offf and Neg Σ does not vary independently. Since in Portuguese ff has strong

V-features, Neg, if it has V-features, will have strong V-features too. Assumingthat this is so, the question to answer to is why the patterns of clitic placementin affirmative and in negative clauses are dissociated in Portuguese. Thefollowing discussion addresses the Portuguese facts.

What makes negative clauses different from affirmative clauses is that innegative clauses the Σ-head (Neg) has lexical content (n o being generated inΣ). I will show that because Neg has lexical content the verb does not have tomove to Σ to check morphological features (at least not in the overt syntax).Since the verb stays in AgrSubj, the order clitic-verb is derived, s in (15):

(15)

subjj

ΣΡ

Σ[Neg]

Σ'

AgrSubjP

AgrSubj'

AgrSubj

O Antonio n oAnthony not

cl

oit

AgrSubjΔviusaw

TPΔ

ontemyesterday

There are two plausible hypotheses with respect to the syntax of negativeclauses. First, it could be that Neg, contrary to ff, does not have V-features.That is, negation is only expressed by the lexical head generated in Σ (thenegative word n )\ the verbal morphology does not include negative features.If this is so, the verb does not move to Σ in negative clauses because checkingof verbal morphology stops in AgrSubj, s represented in (16), to be contrastedto (17):



184 A.M.Martins

(16) [ΣΡ Neg [AgrSubjP AgrSubj [TP T [Agrt)bjp AgrObj [VP V+VS +VS +VS [Vrool-AgrObj-T-AgrSubj]

(17) kp ff [AgrSubjP AgrSubj [TP T [Agl0bjP AgrObj [VP V+VS +VS +VS +VS [Vrool-AgrObj-T-AgrSubj-Aff]t t t

Alternatively, it could be that Neg is like ff in having V-features. Accordingto this hypothesis, negation is expressed by two negative markers: the lexicalnegative head, n o, and an abstract (negative) morpheme associated with theverb.11 This being so, the verb must move to Σ for feature checking in negativeclauses s well. I propose, however, that because Σ has overt content, verbmovement to Σ does not take place before LF.

Following Chomsky (1993: 27-28), let's assume that the verb has inflectionalfeatures in the lexicon s an intrinsic property. These features need to bechecked against the features of the relevant inflectional categories. Whenchecking takes place, the inflectional heads' features disappear. Such features areillegitimate objects at PF, since "they are not proper components of phoneticmatrices" (Chomsky 1993: 30). Furthermore, the relevant features can be eitherweak, in which case they are not seen at PF, or strong, in which case they arevisible at PF. Therefore, strong features, which are illegitimate and visible at PF,must be deleted before spell-out, or the derivation will crash.

A lexical element, say V, is a sequence "(a, Infllv..Infln), where a is themorphological complex [R-Inflr...Infln], R a root and Inflj an inflectional feature.The PF rules only "see" a. When V is adjoined to a functional category F (say,AgrObj), the feature Infl1 is removed from V if it matches F; and so on. If anyInflj remains at LF, the derivation crashes at LF" (Chomsky 1993: 28).

The strong inflectional features external to α are not a problem for PF, sincePF only sees a. On the other hand the inflectional features which are an intrinsic

11. A Probus reviewer comments that "the Statement that Neg is "expressed by two markers: lexicalNeg-head and an abstract morpheme associated with the verb" is inaccurate. This is not specificto Neg. In a checking theory, V enters the syntax associated with features that are also presentelsewhere in the tree, so any given Functional head is 'expressed by two markers'." When Irefer to negation being expressed by two markers, I mean two negative elements that survivethe derivation none of them being deleted when checking takes places. As was pointed out tome by Juan Uriagereka, these two negative markers (a lexical one and a morphematic one)expressing one single instance of sentential negation are overtly represented in some Galiciandialects:(i) Se non ehe non gusta, fagoche outra.

if not you(CL) not please make-you other[if you are not yourself pleased with it, Γ11 make you another.]'If you don't like it, Γ11 make another one for you.'




property of α are not a problem neither because PF rules do not analyze lexicalelements into morphological complexes (see Chomsky 1993: 27-28). Therefore,the strong inflectional features associated with lexical elements do not leadderivations to crash at PF (in contrast to the strong features of the functionalheads).12

The relevant fact with respect to negative clauses is that Σ (in its Neginstantiation) has overt content. This fact may be interpreted in two ways: eithern o, the negative head, is merely the Spell-out of the Σ features; or n o is anindependent lexical element generated s an adjunct to the Σ head and checkingits features against the Σ'5 head features, that is: [ΣΡ [ΣΙ n o [Σ2 (morphologicalfeatures)]] ...

If we take the first approach, functional heads with overt content (of theirown) differ from functional heads without overt content in that their features canbe converted into a "word-like" unit by the module Morphology — in the termsof Chomsky (1994: 8). Therefore, such features are not potential sources ofderivation crashing at PF. In these circumstances, the principle Procrastinateapplies, allowing the verb to move to Sigma only at LF. At this level, the verbchecks its features against the features of the "word-like" Neg head.

Let's take the second approach now. If n o is an independent lexical element,both this lexical element and the verb, containing a negative morpheme, willhave to check their features against the features of Σ2.1 assume that Σ2 containsonly one set of the relevant features. Recall that the two negative markersexpress a single instance of sentential negation and therefore a kind of negativeconcord must obtain. This is guaranteed by the checking procedure: First, thenegative lexical element checks its features against the features of the Σ2 head.The Σ2 head's features concomitantly disappear. Later, the verb moves to Σ inorder to check its own negative features, which are checked against the featuresof the lexical negative head. Since the Σ2 head's features are deleted when thefirst instance of checking takes place (before spell-out), and since lexicalelements' inflectional features are not seen at PF, the derivation will convergeat PF even if the verb moves to Σ only at LF. Hence, Procrastinate applies.

In conclusion, whether we hypothesize that Neg does have or does not haveV-features, in any case the verb will be adjoined to AgrSubj when the Operationspell-out applies. Therefore, the order clitic-verb always surfaces in negativeclauses.

12. Given that in the minimalist framework traces are copies left by moved elements and sincechecking only results in deletion of the inflectional features on the lexical element thatundergoes movement to a checking position, derivations would always crash could PF rules seethe strong inflectional features on the traces.



186 A. M. Martins

2. VP-deletion

VP-deletion occurs in Portuguese in replies to yes/no questions and in the secondconjunct of coordinate structures, äs examples (18) and (19) show:

(18) A Maria deu umlivroao Joäo? — Sim, deu.the Martha gave a bookto-the John yes gave'Did Martha give a book to John? Yes, she did.'

(19) O Joäo esta a ler esse romance e a Maria tambem esta.the John is reading that novel and the Martha also is'John is reading that novel and Martha is too.'

In contrast to Portuguese, Spanish does not allow VP-deletion in either of thesecontexts, äs exemplified in (20) and (21) below:13

13. The object is not represented by a clitic in answers to yes/no questions in Spanish when theobject is a partitive NP or when it is an oblique, like in the examples below:(i) a. Comiste manzanas? — Si, comi.

ate apples yes ate'Did you eat apples? Yes, I did.'

b. Comiste las manzanas? — *Si, comi.ate the apples yes ate'Did you eat the apples? ...'

(ii) Maria puso ei libro en ei estante? — Si, lo puso.Mary put the book in the shelf yes it put'Did Mary put the book on the shelf? Yes, she did.'

This seems to be a consequence of the lack of overt partitive and oblique clitics in Spanish, incontrast to Catalan, French and Italian. In fact, in these languages, the presence of a clitic isobligatory in answers to questions such äs the ones in (i) and (ii). Compare the replies in (i) and(ii) to those in (iii) and (iv):(iii) a. As- tu mange des pommes?

have you eaten of-the apples?'Did you eat apples?'

b. *Oui,j'ai mange./OuiJ'en ai mange.yes I have eaten yes I of-them have eaten'Yes, I did.'

(iv) a. Est-ce que Marie a misle livre surl'etagere?is-it that Mary has put the bookon the shelf'Did Mary put the book on the shelf?'

b. *Oui, Marie mis. /Oui, Marie l'y a mis.yes Mary it has put yes Mary it there(CL) has put'Yes, she did.'

I do not have a precise proposal to make with respect to the relevant Spanish sentences (doesModern Spanish have null partitive and oblique pronouns?). However, I do not take thesentences in (i) and (ii) äs instances of VP-deletion.




(20) Maria le dio unlibroa Juan? - f*Si, dio/*Si, sidio}.Martha him gave a book to John? yes gaveOid Martha give a book to John? Yes, she did.'

(21) *Juan esta leyendo esa novelay Maria {tambien esta/esta tambien}.John is reading that novel and Martha also is/ is too.'John is reading that novel and Martha is too.'

Zagona (1988), comparing English and Spanish, correlates the facts aboutVP-deletion in these two languages with V-movement. Zagona hypothesizes thatif a language does not have V-movement in the overt syntax, it allowsVP-deletion; if a language has overt V-movement, however, VP-deletion is notallowed. Without going into the details of Zagona's analysis, it is clear that itfails on empirical grounds, since Portuguese has both overt V-movement andVP-deletion. Zagona's account therefore makes incorrect predictions with respectto Portuguese and leaves unexplained the contrast between Portuguese andSpanish with respect to VP-deletion.14

Matos (1992) proposes that the setting of the VP-deletion parameter consistsin the identification of the class of heads that in a given language are licensersof the null VP. The set of licensers can differ from one language to another.Accordingly, Matos (1992) states that it is in this respect that English,Portuguese and Spanish differ from each other. Paraphrasing Matos (1992: 298),in English the set of licensers consists of tense operators (typically, auxiliaryverbs); in Portuguese, the set of licensers consists of predicative operators(typically, main verbs); in Spanish, the set of licensers is null.

Matos' account correctly derives the. Spanish and Portuguese facts; it leavesunaccounted, however, why main verbs license VP-deletion in Portuguese butnot in Spanish, given that the author doesn't identify any independent distinctionbetween Portuguese and Spanish main verbs. In addition, empirical problemsarise when we take into account data from Galician. Galician, like Portuguese,allows VP-deletion in answers to yes/no questions. However, VP-deletion ispossible only in affirmative answers, not in negative ones, äs shown in (22)-(23)below. In this respect, Galician differs from Portuguese, where VP-deietion isnot restricted to affirmative clauses, äs shown in (24) to (25) below:

14. On Zagona's account, the null VP in the VP-deletion construction must be Tense-governed inorder to be licensed. Spanish differs from English in the following way: in English, Tense-government of the null VP holds because Infl directly assigns a temporal role to the VP undera sisterhood relation. In Spanish, Infl assigns a temporal role to the verbal head that has raisedto Agr and this temporal role is absorbed by the verbal head. Therefore, the VP is notTense-governed, since it is not assigned a temporal role by its potential Tense-governor (seeZagona 1988b: 172-175).



188 A. M. Martins

Galician(22) Comiche-lo bolo?

ate the cake?'Did you eat the cake?'a. (Si,) comin.

yes ate'Yes, I did.'

b. *Non, non comin.no not ate'No, I didn't.'

c. Non, n'o comin.no not it ate'No, I didn't;

(23) Tes corenta anos?have forty years'Are you forty years old?'a. (Si,) teno.

yes haveTes, I am.'

b. *Non, non teno.no not have'No, I don't.

c. Non, n'os teno.no not them have'No, I don't'.

Portuguese(24) Comeste o bolo?

ate the cake?'Did you eat the cake?'a. (Sim,) comi.

yes ate'Yes, I did.'

b. Näo, näo comi.no not ate'No, I didn't.'

(25) Tens quarenta anos?have forty years'Are you forty years old?'a. (Sim,) tenho.

yes have'Yes, I am.'




b. N o, n o tenho.no not have'No, I don't.'

Matos' analysis does not predict this contrast between affirmative and negativeclauses in Galician. The grammaticality of (22a) and (23a) indicates, in terms ofMatos' analysis, that in Galician, s in Portuguese, main verbs licenseVP-deletion. But if this is the case, the ungrammaticality of (22b) and (23b) isleft unexplained.

To account for the facts under consideration, I hypothesize that the relevantdistinction.between Portuguese and Spanish is the nature of Σ: Σ has strongV-features in Portuguese, but weak V-features in Spanish. Licensing of the nullVP in the VP-deletion construction depends on Σ having strong V-features. Inlanguages like Spanish the appropriate licensing conditions for the empty VPcategory are not met and therefore VP-deletion is not possible in Spanish.

As for the Galician facts and the noted contrast between Galician andPortuguese, they c n be accounted for by claiming that while in Portuguese Neghas V-features, in Galician it does not. We considered these two hypotheses insection 1. Let's hypothesize that each one of them describes correctly the factsof a certain set of languages. In this respect, Portuguese and Galician belong todifferent sets. In Portuguese, Σ has strong V-features in affirmative clauses andnegative clauses and, accordingly, VP-deletion occurs in both. In Galician, Σ hasstrong V-features in affirmative clauses but it doesn't have V-features in negativeclauses and, accordingly, VP-deletion is restricted to affirmative clauses.15

In pre-minimalist accounts of VP-deletion (such s Zagona 1988 and Matos1992), licensing of the null VP is obtained through government of the null VPby an appropriate licenser. In the minimalist framework, government does notplay a role (see Chomsky 1993: 6-10). So, the licensing conditions must berecast in different terms.

Chomsky (1993: 10) states that pro is licensed in a Spec-head relation toAgrSubj, AgrSubj containing strong features. Similarly, we could claim that thenull VP is licensed in a Spec-head relation to Σ, Σ containing strong V-features.A problem arises here, however. Since I propose that Spec of ΣΡ is the landingsite for topic subjects, ahd since the subject may have a topic Interpretation inclauses with VP-deletion, Spec of ΣΡ is taken and therefore cannot be a targetof movement for the null VP. Alternatively, perhaps the null VP adjoins eitherto Spec of ΣΡ or to ΣΡ. In either of these positions, the null VP will be in the

15. The Galician data that I am considering were made accessible to me by Juan Uriagereka, andrepresent his own dialect. It is likely that Galician shows dialectal Variation with respect to thefacts under analysis. Given the hypothesis presented in this paper, we expect, for example, thatVP-deletion is allowed in negative clauses in the dialect mentioned in note 11. I do not havefurther Information on this matter.



190 Λ. Μ. Martins

checking domain of Σ (according to Chomsky 1993: 10-12),16 and thereforethe relevant relation between the null VP and Σ (an agreement relation) willhold, and licensing will obtain.

A representation of the hypothesized structure is given in (26) below:

(26) a.

b.

O Jo o n o viu a Maria mas o Pedro viu.the John not saw the Maria but the Peter saw'John didn't see Mary but Peter did.'

(-)

O Jo o n o viu a Maria mas [ΣΡ [Vp _] [ΣΡ O Pedro [Σ viu ...

c. [ΣΡ O Jo ol [r n o [AgrSubjpti a Mariaktj [VPl tj [v, tj [VP2 [v tj [DP tk ]]]]]]]]]]] mas [ΣΡ [VPJ

[ΣΡ ο Pedro [r viu ...

In the minimalist framework, movement is driven by morphological requirementsand has to be in accordance with the economy principle Greed, which states thatmovement is always self-serving (see Chomsky 1993: 33-34). Movement of thenull VP to the checking domain of Σ satisfies Greed, since the null VP movesfor its own sake to a position where it can be licensed. As for the morphologicaltrigger of movement, I tentatively hypothesize that the null VP has a truth-value

16. Chomsky (1994: 34-35) suggest that the checking domain (of a head) includes only specifiers(excluding adjuncts). In the terms of Chomsky's (1994) Bare Phrase Structure Theory, however,multiple specifiers are admitted. Therefore, if we follow Chomsky (1994), both the subject andthe null VP can be in Spec of ΣΡ positions; and so the condition that the null VP be in thechecking domain of Σ will still be met (see Chomsky 1994: 41-42).




operator feature which has to be checked in the domain of strong . I furtherspeculate that the null operator at stake in the VP-deletion construction is a [+V]operator and, therefore, it must be in the domain of a head containing V-features.That is why it is crucial that is V-related for the VP deletion construction tobe allowed. (I take a functional head with V-features to be "V-related".)

The analysis I am proposing departs from Chomsky (1993: 35) who suggeststhat VP ellipsis is a deletion Operation (äs in earlier transformational analyses ofellipsis). Instead, I take the elided VP in the relevant construction to enter thederivation äs a null category.17 Nunes (1994) reaches a similar conclusion onindependent grounds. In fact, the approach taken by Chomsky (1993) is notcompatible with Chomsky's (1994) proposals. In his 1994 paper, Chomskyproposes that the array of lexical choices that underlies a derivation is anumeration, indicating what the lexical choices are and how many times eachis selected. A numeration is a set of pairs (L, n) where L is an item of thelexicon and n is its index. Every time an item of the lexicon is placed into astructure, the numeration reduces Ln to L^. Spell-out can apply only when n = 0for all items. Reference sets for economy comparisons are determined by theinitial numeration. Convergent derivations which are based on the same initialnumeration are compared; the most economical derivation blocks the others.Bearing in mind these assumptions, let's see what consequences they have withrespect to the mentioned competing analyses of VP deletion. I quote from Nunes(1994: 6-7):

Let us now consider Chomsky's (1993: 35) Suggestion that the deletionOperation ... optionally applies to constructions such äs (Ha), yielding(Hb).

(11) a. John said that he was lookingfor a cat, and so did Billsay that he was lookingfor a cat.

b. John said that he was lookingfor a cat, and so did Bill

17. Chomsky (1993: 11, 18-20) assumes the VP-internal Subject Hypothesis and a Larsoniananalysis of the VP structure. These two assumptions being adopted, the null VP, in theVP-deletion construction, can be characterized äs excluding the higher VP shell of aLarsonian-style VP, therefore excluding the subject, äs represented below:(i) VP

VP <— this VP, when null, moves (= tj positionin example [26b])

(Spec) V'

Obj



192 . . Martins

Clearly, the two instances of some of the lexical items of (l l a) should bespecified in the initial numeration, for such a double occurrence does notresult from duplication by the Form Chain Operation. ... The question iswhether (llb) is derived from (Ha). Let us suppose that it is. Thederivations of the sentences of (l 1) should then be compared in terms ofeconomy, for both are convergent and presumably have the samenumeration. Given that the derivation of (llb) invokes an (apparentlyunmotivated) Operation that is not required by the derivation of (lla),namely deletion, economy considerations should block the derivation of(llb), yielding an incorrect result.

Since the derivations of (lla) and (llb) are both convergent, the onlyway to prevent them from being compared in terms of economy is toassume that they do not have the same numeration at the point where thealleged deletion Operation takes place. If this is so, then it must be thecase that, contrary to Chomsky's Suggestion, the two sentences of (11)cannot be related derivationally. In fact, an alternative approach to theapparent deletion in (llb) suggests itself. We may take the initialnumeration underlying (llb) to include an empty category (the comple-ment of did), which at LF is assigned the Interpretation 4say that he waslooking for a cat'. Since they have different numerations, the derivationsof the sentences in (l 1) cannot be compared in terms of economy, whichcorrectly allows both to surface.

As a final point to this section, I will briefly discuss some facts brought to myattention by Jaume Solä. In languages like Spanish and Catalan, whereVP-deletion is in general disallowed, imperative sentences constitute anexception. In this context, VP-deletion occurs. This is relevant because withrespect to clitic placement, enclisis is obligatory in imperatives (äs sentences [27]and [36] show). The data conceraing VP-deletion are provided in (28) through(35) and (37) through (41), below. The imperative sentences with VP-deletion,in the right column, are to be contrasted to the sentences in the left column,which express negative commands. Since imperative morphology does not occurin negative sentences, VP-deletion is excluded from sentences expressingnegative commands.

Catalan:(27) Digues-m'ho, jo no ho dire a ningu. / *M'ho digues...

teil me it I not it tell-FUT to anybody me it teil'Teil me, I won't teil it to anybody.'

(28) a. Fes! b. No *(ho)facis!do not it do'Do it!'




(2*) a. Portalbring'Bring it here!'

(30) a. Dona!give'Give it to me!'

(3) a. Explical/Digues!teilTeil (it to) me!)'

(3!) a. Pren!/Agafa!takeTake it!'Take some!'

(35) a. Ves!go'Go there!'

(34) a. Pensa!think'Think about it!'

(35) a. Obre!openOpen it!'

b. No *(ho) portis!not it bring

b. No *(m'ho) donis!not me it give

b. No (m') *(ho) expliquis/diguisnot me it teil

b. No *(el) prenguis/No *(l') agafis!not it take

c. No *(en) prenguis/No*(ny)agafis!not of-it-CL take

b. No *(hi) vagis!not there-CL go

b. No *(hi) pensis!not about-it-CL think

b. No*(r)obris!not it open (the box, the present...)

c. No(lf)obris!not it open (the door)



194 A. M. Martins

Spanish18

(36) Dimelo, yo no se lo dire a nadie. / *Me lo di...tell-me-it I not him/her/them it tell-FUT to anybodyTeil me, I won't teil it to anybody.'

(37) a. Haz! b.do'Do it!'

(38) a. Da! b.giveOive it to me!'

(39) a. Cuenta! b.teilTeil (it to) me!'

(40) a. Toma! b.takeTake it!'

(41) a. Abre! b.openOpen it!' c.

No *(lo) hagas!not it do

No *(me lo) des!not me it give

No (me) *(lo) cuentes!not me it teil

No *(lo) tomes!not it take

No *(lo) abras!not it open (the box, the present...)No (lo) abras!not it open (the door)

Laka (1990: 246-253) proposes that "Spanish imperative is one of the values ofΣ in this language" and is therefore "generated in Σ". This is the reason why"imperative mood and sentence negation are incompatible", since "they both areelements of Σ." (This hypothesis extends to other languages where imperativeand negation cannot co-occur.) Technically, Laka's proposal can be implementedin different ways, which will not be pursued here. I will just claim, followingLaka, that imperative (Imp) may be one of the instantiations of Σ, other than ffand Neg. I furthermore claim that Imp, contrary to ff and Neg, is strong in

18. In Spanish, differently from Catalan, there is no contrast between positive and negativecommands with respect to VP-deletion in the following cases:

Ve!go'Go there!Toma!takeTake some!'Piensa!thinkThink about it!'

No vayas!not go'Don't go there!'No tomes!not take'Don't take any!'No pienses!not think'Don't think about it!

This is due to the fact that Spanish, contrary to Catalan, does not have partitive or obliqueclitics, s mentioned in note 13.




Catalan and Spanish. (In this aspect Catalan and Spanish do not differ fromPortuguese and Galician where Imp is also strong, therefore allowing forVP-deletion and making enclisis obligatory.) Given this analysis, the orderverb-clitic in imperative clauses and the possibility of VP-deletion in the samecontext are straightforwardly accounted for. Spanish and Catalan show enclisisand VP-deletion in imperatives because has strong V-features in imperatives.

In the terms of Laka's analysis, is the locus for truth-value operators, Äffand Neg being universally values of . Whether Imp may be an instantiation of

, in addition to Äff and Neg, however, is a parametric Option, giving rise toVariation across languages. In French, imperative morphology and sententialnegation can co-occur (Faits-le\ — Faits-lepas\ — Ne lefaitspasl [do it — doit not — not it do not]); this is evidence that Imperative is not an instantiationof in French (see Laka 1990: 247). Therefore, the enclitic order found inFrench imperative sentences (see above) is not the outcome of verb movementto but rather, presumably, the result of verb movement to C. If this is so, wepredict that, contrary to Spanish and Catalan, French does not allow for VPdeletion in imperative sentences. Examples such äs (42) and (43) below bringsupport to this analysis:

(42) *Fais! /' Fais-le!do do it

(43) *Prends! / Prends-le!take take it

With some verbs, however, lack of the object clitic doesn't induce ungramma-ticality: Donnel [give (it to me)], Racontel [teil (it to me)], Ouvrel [open(it)].19 I take this to be a lexical fact; verbs such äs donner, raconter, ouvrirhave the Option of incorporating a null object äs a lexical property (see Haie andKeyser 1993).20 The same fact holds of Catalan obrir and Spanish abrir (seeexamples [35c] and [41c], to be contrasted to [35b] and [41b]).

19. The French data were made accessible to me by a Probus reviewer.20. Similar facts hold of English. Though main verbs do not license VP-deletion in English, äs

sentences (i-b)-(ii-b) show, sentences of the relevant kind with certain main verbs (likewiderstand or know} are fully grammatical, äs attested by (iii-b)-(iv-b):(i) a. Do you study mathematics?

b. *Yes,I study.(ii) a. Did youfind what you were lookingfor?

b. *Yes, Ifound.(iii) a. Do you widerstand what I'm saying?

b. Yes, I understand.(i v) a. Do you know what m talking about?

b. Yes, I know.



196 A. M. Martins

3. Some historical evidence

As we saw in section l, Portuguese and Spanish differ from each other withrespect to the pattern of affirmative replies to yes/no questions. While inPortuguese a minimal unmarked answer consists of a bare verb, in Spanish itconsists of the affirmative word si. This contrast does not reduce to thedifference between the two languages with respect to allowing or not allowingVP-deletion. That is: In Spanish, we can derive the ungrammaticality of ananswer consisting of a bare verb from the lack of VP-deletion. In Portuguese,however, we cannot derive the oddity of an answer consisting of the affirmativeword sim from the existence of VP-deletion. If VP-deletion alone was the issue,we would expect Portuguese to show free Variation between the affirmative wordsim and a bare verb in affirmative answers to yes/no questions. Since this is notthe case, we have to assume that the Spanish affirmative word si and thePortuguese affirmative word sim are not identical in nature. According to theanalysis sketched in section l, Spanish si is a lexical Äff head (the affirmativecounterpart of no)\ but Portuguese sim, l assume, is not an Äff head (Äff inPortuguese never has overt content, differently from Neg).21

When we look at Latin, the ancestor of Portuguese and Spanish, we find thatLatin was like Portuguese and unlike Spanish with respect to the pattern ofminimal affirmative answers to yes/no questions, äs examples (44) to (46) show:

Latin(44) Clodius insidias fecit Miloni? - Fecit. (Cicero)22

Clodius(NOM) plots made Miloni(DAT) made'Did Clodius plot against Milo? Yes, he did.'

(45) Fuistin über? - Fui. (Plauto)23

were free was'Were you free? Yes, I was/

(46) Pater eins rediit an non? Rediit. (Terencio)24

father of-him returned or not? returned'Did his father return or not? Yes, he did.'

21. A Probus reviewer points out a contrast between Spanish and Portuguese which might beinterpreted äs support for the claim that Spanish si is a head, whereas Portuguese sim is not:"Consider the translation of the emphatic affirmative Statement: She DID come. In Spanish, onecan say Ella si vino, whereas this is impossible in Portuguese: *Ela sim veio."

22. Example taken from Pinkster (1990: 191).23. Example taken from Haie and Bück (1903: 137).24. Example taken from Woodcock (1959: 128-129).




This pattern of affirmative answers, consisting of a bare verb, is often attestedin the Latin texts. To the contrary, affirmative answers consisting of the wordsie (from which Spanish si and Portuguese sim derive) are rarely attested andappear to be emphatic answers (the equivalent to English answers such äs ofcourse, to be sure). 5

Interpreting these data äs I proposed in section l, we are led to the conclusionthat in Latin, Äff, the affirmative instantiation of , has strong V-features.

Portuguese displays, therefore, a conservative property that in the time of OldRomance might have been shared with languages such äs Spanish. Supposingthat this is in fact the case, we can shed some light on the difference betweenModern Portuguese and Modern Spanish by accounting for the change thatoccurred in Spanish. It is a well known fact that Proto and Old Romancemorphology shows a tendency towards debilitation. Suppose that äs part of thegeneral process of morphological debilitation, Z's V-features became weak. Ifwe further assume that in minimal unmarked replies to yes/no questions, hasto have lexical content, it follows that if comes to have weak V-features, thismay trigger the reanalysis of adverbial si (that optionally co-occurred with theverb in affirmative replies to yes/no questions) into an Äff head (associated withweak V-features). In contexts where did not have to have lexical content (thatis, in affirmative sentences that are not replies to yes/no question), it remainedpossible for Äff to have weak V-features without having overt content. On theother hand, in Portuguese, retained its strong V-features, and there was nomotivation for the reanalysis of adverbial sim into an Äff head. (In negativesentences, in Spanish, presumably already had lexical content and so there wasno need for reanalysis.) The structures associated with the proposed change aregiven below:

Stage : has strong V-features

(47) (si) [ZP Äff [AgrSubjP AgrSubj [TP T [AglObjP AgrObj [VP V+VS +V, +VS +VS [V

t t-7—t ^movement in the overt syntax

25. On this issue, see, for example, Woodcock (1959: 129), Simpson et al. (1959: under yes) andAndrews (1789-1858: under sie 5). I quote from these authors:"Latin has no words exactly equivalent to our 'yes' and 'no', which are used only äs sentence-substitutes, but etiam, ita, and occasionally sie, are used äs affirmative replies, and minime, nonita, occasionally non, for negative. More often the important part of the question is repeated äsa Statement" (Woodcock)."Yes, ita, ita est, sie, certe, vero, etiam, sane Of course, to be sure'; immo 'indeed'; more oftenrendered by repetition of some word in the question (suitably inflected)". (Simpson et al.)"Sie, (...) In answers, (...) ante-class. and rare" (Andrews).



198 . . Martins

Stage II: 's debilitation triggering the reanalysis of si

(48) fep si Ugrsubjp AgrSubj [TP T [Agl<)bjp AgrObj [VP V+VW +VS +VS +VS [Vro

t t_ It lmovement in the overt syntax

If things went äs I am suggesting, we expect that at some point in the past,Spanish and Portuguese were identical with respect to the nature of (before thechange took place in Spanish). We also expect in accordance with the hypothesisI have presented, that at that point enclisis äs well äs VP-deletion and the patternof minimal affirmative answer consisting of a bare verb occurred in Spanish.This prediction is borne out äs examples (49) to (54) attest:

Old Spanish(49) Tras vna viga lagar metios con grantpauor

behind a beam (of the) wine-press hid-himself with great dread'He hid behind the wine-press beam, with great dread.'

(12th Century)26

(50) al principio danaronme las cosas dichas (16th Century)27

at-the beginning enraged-me the things said'At the beginning, the things that were said enraged me.'

(51) I traedes uostros escriptos? Rei, si traemos (12th Century)28

and bring your books king yes bring'And, do you bring your books? Yes, King, we do.'

(52) Soisvos alguno dellos? Si soy. (16th Century)29

are you any of them yes am'Are you one of them? Yes, I am.'

(53) tVenides? Campeador, buena ^inxiesie espada! (12th Century)30

come-2PL'Are you back?'muchos dias vos veamos con los ojos de las caras!Grado al Criador, vengo, mujier ondrada!

26. Example taken from Gifford and Hodcroft (1959: 35).27. Example taken from Keniston (1937: 96).28. Example taken from Gifford and Hodcroft (1959: 42).29. Example taken from Keniston (1937: 593). Keniston comments, in reference to this example,

that "object pronouns are rarely used", in sixteenth Century Castillian prose.30. Example taken from Men6ndez-Pidal (1946: 1108).




(54) Puesy quien esta arriba? (late 15th Century)31

Quiereslo saber?want-it to know'Do you want to know it?'Quiero.want'Yes, I do.'

Sentences (49) and (50) show that the order verb-clitic is found in Spanish fromthe oldest texts through the sixteenth Century. Sentences (51) and (52) show thatthroughout the same period VP-deletion is also found; sentences (53) and (54)attest, in addition, the pattern of minimal affirmative answer consisting of a bareverb.

The Old Spanish facts, therefore, offer additional evidence for the hypothesisthat both phenomena, enclisis and VP-deletion, derive from a common propertyof the relevant grammars, namely the morphological strength of .

4. Embedded clauses: VP-deletion in the absence of enclisis

I will conclude with some remarks on clitic placement and VP-deletion inembedded domains. In Portuguese, VP-deletion occurs in embedded clauses (äswell äs in matrix clauses), äs shown in (55a) below, but enclisis is not allowedin embedded clauses, äs (55b) shows:

(55) a. O detective quer que o Pedro Ihe conte tudothe detective wants that the Peter him tells(SUBJ.pRES) allo que aconteceu durante o assalto e quer queDEM.CL that happened during the assault and wants thata Maria tambem conte.the Maria also tells(SUBJ.PKES)The detective wants Peter to teil him everything that happenedduring the assault and wants Mary to do it too.'

b. *O detective quer que o Pedro conte-Ihe tudothe detective wants that the Peter tells(SUBJ.PRES)-him allo que aconteceu durante o assalto...DEM.CL that happened during the assault

According to my proposal, since VP-deletion is allowed in embedded clauses,it must be that, in both independent and embedded clauses is strong inPortuguese. Therefore, an explanation is necessary to account for the fact that

3l. Example taken from Cejador y Frauca (1913: 62).



200 . . Martins

the verb does not raise to in the overt syntax in embedded clauses, with theconsequence that clitics precede the verb in this context.

Lightfoot (1991), based upon learnability considerations, proposes that theselection properties of verbs which take clauses äs complements are representedin Comp. I quote from Lightfoot (1991: 38-39):

The fact that certain morphological forms occur only in embedded clausesmight also be a prima fade problem for degree-0 learnability. For example,certain predicates are followed by verbs in the subjunctive mood in theRomance languages. This is presumably a form of complementation markedin the embedded Comp or in the head of the clause (INFL) or in both. Eachof these positions is accessible to our degree-0 learner.

In Latin, where two lexical Neg-heads exist (ne and non), each one of themoccurs in embedded clauses according to selection by the verb of the matrixclause.32 Such selection is independent of the selection of mood, subjunctiveor indicative, and the selection of the complementizer (either quod or uf). Thepossible combinations are schematized in (56):

(56) / indicative \ / nequod <f \ non (uf) - subjunctive

^ subjunctive / ^ non(Note that although ne always co-occurs with the subjunctive, the selection ofne is not dependent on the selection of the subjunctive, since the subjunctivemay also co-occur with non.) See on this subject, Riemann (1927: 304-355),Pinkster (1990: 192, 209) and Lakoff (1968: 130-217), among others.

In the Romance languages, certain verbs appear to select the Äff instantiationof . That is, the relevant verbs take affirmative clauses äs complements andexclude negative clauses, äs the contrast between (57a) and (57b) or (58a) and(58b) attest:

(57) a. A Lei proibe que se estacione em cima dos passeios.the law forbids that IMP.SUBJ.CL park on the sidewalksThe law forbids parking on the sidewalks.'

b. #A lei proibe que näo se estacione nos lugaresthe law forbids that not IMP.SUBJ.CL park in-the placesautorizados.permitted

32. For example: certain verbs, such äs imperare Order' or uelle 'want', malle 'prefer', nolle 'notwant' select the complementizer ut and the negative marker ne (ut being generally deleted whenco-occurring with ne)\ other verbs, such äs the impersonal verbs, select the same complemen-tizer, ut, but the negative marker non\ a very few verbs, such asfacere 'do' admit both construc-tions, (uf)-ne and ut-non.




(58) a. O mau tempo impediu que eu saisse de casa.the bad weather prevented that I left the houseThe bad weather prevented me from leaving the house.'

b. #0 bom tempo impediu que eu n o saisse de casa.the good weather prevented that I not left the house

I take the data from Latin and Portuguese presented above to show that amongthe selection properties of matrix verbs is the ability to select a particularinstantiation of Σ in the complement clause.

Hence, if Lightfoot's hypothesis is in the right track, we are led to theconclusion that Comp contains Σ features. In embedded clauses, therefore, thereare two heads that need to check their features against the features of Σ, theverbal head and Comp. I propose that checking proceeds s follow: First, Σmoves to Comp where the relevant Comp features are checked, and the complexhead [c Σ C] is formed (in the same way that the complex head [Agrsubj TAgrSubj] is formed in English — see Chomsky 1993: 7-8). Later, the verb raisesto Comp and checks its Σ features against the Σ features of the Comp head.Since the features contained in the Σ head are deleted when checking takes placein Comp, they are not a problem for PF (see above the discussion about negativesentences). Therefore, the verb does not need to raise to Comp before Spell-out.Checking of the verbal Σ features is delayed until LF in satisfaction ofProcrastinate. That is why clitics precede the verb in embedded clauses. Thecorresponding representation is given in (59):



202 Λ. Μ. Martins

(59) (...) CP

(Spec) C'

quer que o paiwants that the father'He wants his father to give him a bike.'

de uma bicicletagive a bike

Note that if the verb checked its features first, it would not move beyond Σ (orthe principle of Greed would be violated). Therefore, there would be no way inwhich Comp could check its features.

The account I am proposing supposes that Σ contains only one set of features(which, in embedded domains, are [+ V, + C]), to check both the Σ features ofthe verb and the Σ features of C. If this were not so, raising of Σ to C beforespell-out would not affect the strong V-features associated with Σ, and unlessthese strong V-features were checked off before spell-out, the derivation wouldcrash. The fact that Σ contains one set of features (and not two separate sets ofV-features and C-features) is what guarantees the necessary agreement betweenComp and the verb with respect to their Σ features (see the discussion aboveabout negation).

5. Conclusion

This paper Starts from the observation that in Romance enclisis in tensed clausescorrelates with the possibility of VP-deletion. To account for this fact, anhypothesis is advanced that both enclisis and the Option for VP-deletion dependupon the strength of the functional category Σ, the locus for Affirmation /Negation, which is positioned between C and AgrSubj. It is argued that Romance



+vstrong

-V

+Vstrong

+Vstrong

+Vweak

+Vweak

+Vweak

+Vweak

+Vweak

+Vweak

+Vweak

+Vweak


languages fall into two groups with respect to the nature of Σ: Galician andPortuguese have strong Σ; Spanish, Catalan, French and Italian have weak Σ.The relevant characterization of Σ, on each one of its instantiations ( ff andNeg), is portrayed in the table below (where [+V] and [-V] stand for having ornot having V-features):33

Galician Portuguese Spanish Catalan French Italian

ff

Neg

The execution of the analysis, based on the above hypothesis, led to thefollowing conclusions:

Licensing of VP-deletion depends on Σ having strong V-features. The null VPin the VP-deletion construction i s licensed in a Spec-head type relation to strongΣ, Σ containing V-features. Therefore, VP-deletion is allowed in Portuguese (inboth affirmative and negative clauses) and in Galician (only in affirmativeclauses); and is not an Option in Spanish, Catalan, French and Italian.

Enclisis is the outcome of verb movement to Σ in the overt syntax (cliticsbeing incorporated in AgrSubj); verb movement in the overt syntax only takesplace when the V-features of Σ are strong since otherwise the principle Pro-crastinate applies. Therefore, enclisis is found in the same set of languageswhere VP-deletion is a possibility, that is, Portuguese and Galician. In Spanish,Catalan, French and Italian, verb movement to Σ is delayed until LF and soproclisis surfaces. In negative clauses, however, enclisis is never derived, evenwhen Σ has strong V-features (the Portuguese case); to account for this fact, itis proposed that if an inflectional head has overt content (of its own), V-movement can be delayed until LF even though the relevant inflectional headcontains strong features. An analysis in the same iine is proposed to account forthe generality of proclisis in embedded domains. In embedded clauses, Σ movesto C forming the complex head [c Σ C] which has overt content. Historically,languages with strong Σ, and hence with enclisis and VP-deletion, display aconservative property, which in the time of Old Romance was common to the

33. I do not have empirical evidence that Spanish type languages have a [+V] Neg, since lack ofVP deletion and proclisis in negative clauses would be also derived, in those languages, was Neg[-V]. I am just assuming, in the absence of positive evidence for [-V], that in Spanish typelanguages Neg is like ff in having weak V-features. It can be that the Option for a [-V] Negis restricted to the languages where Σ is strong (like Galician), but a f ll discussion of thismatter i s beyond the scope of this paper.



204 A. M. Martins

other Romance languages. The weakening of in the innovative languages (forexample Spanish) made enclisis in tensed clauses and VP-deletion unavailablein those languages. Data from Latin and Old Spanish were considered andsupport this analysis.

Centre of LinguisticsUniversity ofLisbon

References

Andrews, E. A. (1787-1858). Harper's Latin Dictionary. New York: American Book Company.Belletti, Adriana (1990). Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects ofVerb Syntax. Torino: Rosenberg &

Sellier.Cejador y Frauca, J. (ed.) (1913). Fernando de Rojas, La Celestina. Madrid: Clasicos Castellanos —

Ediciones de "La Lectura".Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

(1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20, Kenneth Haieand Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.(1994). Bare Phrase Structure. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge.

Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, M A: MIT Press.Gifford, D.J. and F. W. Hodcroft (1959). Textos Lingüisticos del Medioevo Espanol. Oxford: The

Dolphin.Gleitman, Lila (1966). Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41: 260-293. [Reprinted in

D. Reibel and S. Schane (1969) (eds.). Modern Studies in English. New York: Prentice-HalL]Haie, W. G. and C.D. Bück (1903). A Latin Grammar. (Alabama Linguistic and Philosophical Series,

8). University of Alabama Press. (Fifth reprinting: 1987).Haie, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of

syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20, Kenneth Haie and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.).Cambridge, M A: MIT Press.

Heim, Irene R. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Jonas, Dianne and Jonathan Davis Bobaljik (1QQ3). Specs for subjects; The role of TP in Tcelandic.The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Kayne, Richard (1991). Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647-686.(1993). The antisymmetry of syntax. Unpublished manuscript, City University of New York.

Keniston, Hayward (1937). The Syntax of Castillian Prose. The Sixteenth Century. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992). Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Laka, Itziar (1990). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.(1991). Negative Fronting in Romance: Movement to . Unpublished manuscript, University ofRochester.

Larson, Richard (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.Lakoff, Robin (1968). Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Lightfoot, David (1991). Howto Set Parameters: Argumentsfrom Language Change. Cambridge, M A:

MIT Press.




Martins, Ana Maria (1994). Cliticos na historia do Portugues. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,University of Lisbon.

Menendez-Pidal, Ramon (1946). Caniar de Mio Cid. Texto, Gramatica y Vocabulario, III. ObrasCompletas de R. Menendez-Pidal. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe (Fifth reprinting: 1980).

Matos, Gabriela (1992). Construgöes de elipse dopredicado em Portugues. SVnulo e Despojamento.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lisbon.

Nunes, Jairo (1994). Linearization of non-trivial chains at PF. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Maryland, College Park.

Pinkster, Harm (1990). Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic

Inquity 20: 365-424.Pontes, Eunice (1987). O Topico no Portugues do Brasil. Campinas: Pontes Editores.Riemann, O. (1927). Syntaxe Laune d'apres les Principes de la Grammaire Historique. Paris:

Klincksieck. (Seventh edition, reviewed by E. Ernout).Rouveret, Alain (1989). Cliticization et temps en portugais europeen. Revue des Langues Romanes,

93: 337-371.Simpson, Funk and Wagnalls (1959). Cassell's New Latin Dictionary: Latin-English, English-Latin.

New York.Sun, Sungki (1993). The syntax of Korean topic constructions and multiple nominative constructions.

Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Suner, Margarita (1982). Syntax and Semantics of Spanish Presentational Sentence-Types.

Washington: Georgetown University Press.Woodcock, E. C. (1959). A New Latin Syntax. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Zagona, Karen (1988a). Proper Government of antecedentless VP in English and Spanish. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 95-128.(1988b). Verb Phrase Syntax: A Parametric Study of English and Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer.



Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of Sigma

Documents

Transcript of Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of Sigma