Concepciones sobre las feminidades

We have seen in chapter two that sometimes the verbs in Dutch verb clusters do seem to move: first, there is optional verb movement in the simple participle constructions, and in the auxiliary-infinitive and modal-infinitive constructions (see (80)-(82), respectively), and second, there are deviant orders in the modal-auxiliary-verb constructions, which crucially also contain a participle (see (83)):

63

(80) a. ..dat Jan het boek heeft gelezen. [1-2]

that Jan the book not has read

b. ..dat Jan het boek gelezen heeft. [2-1]

‘That Jan hasn’t read the book.’

(81) a. ..dat Jan zijn scriptie niet zal schrijven. [1-2] that Jan his thesis not will write

b. ..dat Jan zijn scriptie niet schrijven zal. [2-1] ‘That Jan will not write his thesis.’

(82) a. ..dat Anna misschien haar broer een CD wil geven. [1-2] that Anna maybe her brother a CD wants give

b. ..dat Anna misschien haar broer een CD geven wil. [2-1] ‘That Anna maybe wants to give her brother a CD.’

(83) a. ..dat Jan Marie kan hebben gezien. [1-2-3]

that Jan Marie can have seen.PART

b. ..dat Jan Marie gezien kan hebben. [3-1-2]

c. ?*..dat Jan Marie kan gezien hebben. [1-3-2] ‘That Jan can have seen Marie.’

The optional variation in the two verb infinitive constructions I will leave aside for now (but see the discussion, chapter 8, for suggestions), and concentrate on the participle constructions (i.e. (80) and (83)). As in chapter two, we will assume that participles have the features +N and +V. This means they can be licensed on the object position, allowing the participle to show up on the right hand side of the finite verb, a fact that could not be accounted for in the OV-approach:

(84) ..dat [TP Jani het boekj [T heeftm [FP gelezenk ti ti [F tm [vP ti tj [VP tk ]].

Note that we will assume that the participle skips its own Spec,vP, as it cannot be attracted/licensed by itself. The other predictions for participles can directly be translated: the participles still move to specifiers of the verbs in verb clusters where they can get licensed, and being main verbs themselves, can only select nominal and sentential complements. The question that remains is why the participle cannot raise higher, to Spec,TP too, as it is a nominal element? Indeed we will argue that it is possible, rendering the [2-1] order:

(85) ..dat [TP Jani het boekj gelezenk [T heeftm [FP ti ti tk [F tm [vP ti tj [VP tk ]].

As before, the base-generated order of arguments needs to be preserved. 3.6 German verb clusters

So far, we have seen that a VO-approach can account for verb clusters in Dutch by assuming that the lack of independent Tense reflects a defective TP, which on its turn renders the verbal complements transparent. Furthermore, the vP of these structures is deficient as well, in that it cannot license its arguments for Case. To this purpose, the arguments have to raise to positions preceding the matrix verb, where they get licensed by indirect Agreement through the matrix predicate with the embedded predicates. The question is now, does the analysis of German verb clusters as in chapter two translate to a fitting VO-approach as well?

Recall that the general order of verbs in German is [2-1] and [3-2-1]:

(86) a. ..weil er das Buch gekauft hat/*hat gekauft. [2-1/*1-2] AUX-PART because he the book bought has/has bought

b. ..weil er das Buch kaufen wird/*wird kaufen. [2-1/*1-2] AUX-INF because he the book buy will/will buy

64 c. ..weil er das Buch kaufen muss/*muss kaufen. [2-1/*1-2] MOD-INF because he the book must/must buy

(87) a. ..weil er es kaufen können will. [3-2-1/*others] MOD-MOD-V because he it buy be.able wants

b. ..weil er es kaufen können wird. [3-2-1/*others] MOD-MOD-V because he it buy be.able will

(88) ..weil er es gekauft haben muss. [3-2-1/*others] MOD-AUX-V because he it bought have must

With the exception of auxiliary-modal-verb constructions, which have deviating orders:

(89) a. ..weil er es hat1 kaufen3 können2. [1-3-2/3-1-2/*others] AUX-MOD-V

because he it has buy be.able b. . ..weil er es kaufen3 hat1 können2.

(90) a. ..weil er es wird1 kaufen3 können2. [1-3-2/3-1-2/*others] AUX-MOD-V

because he it will buy be.able b. ..weil er es kaufen3 wird1 können2.

The analysis in the OV-approach was that German infinitives are nominal, except for the functional verbs (modals, causatives and perception verbs) when they are selected by the temporal auxiliaries, in which case they show the IPP-effect and have deviating orders (as in (89)). Recall also that no verb movement was assumed to take place in the canonical orders because the underlying structure of the sentences was assumed to be 3-2-1. In a VO-approach this changes: the underlying structure is now taken to be 1-2-3, as we have seen in this chapter. The German verbs thus have to be positioned in a derived order, while the Dutch verbs remain on their base-generated positions (or at least retain that order). From a VO-approach, it now thus follows that sentence (91a) has the underlying structure (91b)79:

(91) a. ..weil er das Buch kaufen3 können2 will1.

because he the book buy to.be.able wants ‘Because he wants to be able to buy the book.’

b. ..weil [FP will1 [FP können2 [vP er [VP [V kaufen3 das Buch]]].

How can this structure be derived? The subject er must raise to Spec,FP for nominative Case, as in Dutch, and das Buch raises there for Case too, as we have argued for in paragraph 3.4. Furthermore assuming, as we did in chapter two, that German infinitives are nominal, this means they are licensed by Case too, and move for that purpose. Thus kaufen moves to the Spec,FP of können, and the complex kaufen können moves to the specifier position of will, rendering the following structure:

(92) ..weil [FP eri das Buchj [kaufenV können]k willF [FP (ti tj) tk [vP tj ti [VP tV tj]]]. [3-2-1]

Note that we thus again argue that VP-Raising takes place in German (like we did in the OV- approach). An alternative analysis is that können first moves to the specifier of will, after which kaufen moves to the specifier of können, which gives raise to nested structures. As this derivation makes use of less local steps however (the last verb, kaufen, has to make a large step), I want to argue that the first analysis is preferred.

Turning then to the deviant orders, how are they derived? They crucially involve auxiliary verb projections that aren’t nominal, as we saw in chapter two. The functional projection selected for by the

79 _{I will analyse the projections of auxiliaries as functional projections FP right now, leaving their exact structure}

65 temporal auxiliary shows the IPP-effect, and has verbal features only. Consider the following underlying structure for (97):

(93) ..weil [FP hat1 [FP können2 [vP er [VP kaufen3 es]]].

Again, we take er and es to raise to the specifier positions of the matrix predicate for Case. Next, the verb kaufen, which is nominal, has to raise to the specifier of the next verbal projection, to get licensed. Thus [1-3-2] is derived:

(94) ..weil [FP eri esj hat1 [FP (ti tj) kaufen3,k können2 [vP tj ti [VP tk tj ]]]. [1-3-2]

Just as we have seen with participles in Dutch (which are also argued to be nominal), the nominal infinitive may raise further, to a higher verbal projection, presumably for Focus-features or something of the kind, as its Case-features have already been checked. Thus, [3-1-2] is derived:

(95) ..weil [FP eri esj kaufen3,k hat1 [FP (ti tj) tk können2 [vP tj ti [VP tk tj ]]]. [3-1-2]

Any other orders are out, as V2 is an auxiliary verb or functional verb with the IPP-effect, which isn’t nominal, and therefore cannot raise. The one question that remains for this analysis, is why the [1-2-3] order is out in German, taken that the complement position (i.e. Spec,vP) should be a licensing position for the nominal infinitive too (as was the case for participles in Dutch). At this point, I have no explanation for this fact, but it does correlate nicely with the fact that participles in the German simple participle constructions cannot remain in situ either, cf. the [2-1] orders in (86).

The combination of VP-Raising and nominal infinitive movement correctly predicts furthermore that non-verbal material may interrupt the verb cluster. The nominal infinitive moves, as usual, to the specifier of a higher verbal projection to get licensed, and since the whole phrase moves, any complements inside the moved infinitive can be moved along, too (thus providing further evidence that VP-Raising is a legitimate operation in German):

(96) ..dass er für ihn nicht [hatte1 [[die Firma am Leben halten]3 wollen2]]. [1-3-2]

that he for him not had the company alive keep.INF want.INF ‘..that he himself didn’t want to keep the company alive.’

Thus we can conclude that the VO-approach can straightforwardly account for the verb clusters and word orders as found in German, though we have not arrived at a conclusion why the participle or nominal infinitive can never occur verb cluster finally (i.e. why the 1-2-3 order is always out in Standard German).

3.7 Processing crossed and nested structures

Turning now to the processing of the verb clusters in the two languages, can we make better predictions based on the syntactic structure as analysed in a VO-approach than in an OV-approach? 3.7.1 Crossed versus nested structures

Consider again the sentences from Bach et al. (1986):

(97) Johanna heeft Hans de kinderen de paarden leren helpen voeren. Dutch Johanna has Hans the children the horses teach help feed

NP1 NP2 NP3 NP4 V1 V2 V3

(98) Johanna hat Hans die Kinder die Pferde füttern lehren helfen. German Johanna has Hans the children the horses feed teach help

NP1 NP2 NP3 NP4 V3 V2 V1

66 In chapter two we have seen that it does not follow from an OV-approach that the Dutch structures are processed more easily than the German structures. In a VO-approach however, this does follow: while the Dutch structure only involves obligatory object shift of the arguments to positions preceding the matrix verb leren, in German additional processes have to take place to license its verbs. That is, I want to propose that VP-Raising in German has to take place additionally: the nominal infinitives have to raise to get licensed. In these VPs, the infinitives reside with the traces of their subjects, which must have moved of Case. Furthermore, if the infinitives have complements, they come along too, or, when their complements have scrambled, the traces of these complements move along. This makes the preposed VPs heavy elements for the parser, because the VPs will have to be put back for interpretation to their original position. Therefore, these structures in German are very difficult to process.

3.7.2 Deviant orders in Dutch

Consider again the sentences with modal-auxiliary-verb constructions in Dutch, where the main verb occurs as a participle:

(99) a. ..dat Jan Marie de foto’s kan hebben gegeven. [1-2-3] that Jan Marie the photographs can have given

b. ?*..dat Jan Marie foto’s kan gegeven hebben. [1-3-2] c. ..dat Jan Marie de foto’s gegeven kan hebben. [3-1-2] ‘That Jan can have given Marie the photographs.’

While in an OV-approach it was predicted that sentence (99a) would be the hardest to process (because it involved multiple movement operations), it is now argued to be easiest to process: in a VO- approach this structure contains the least syntactic operations, as this is the word order for the verbs in which they are base-generated. In (99c) on the other hand, the participle has to raise through the verb cluster for additional, non-obligatory reasons (which we have suggested to be for some focus- features). As this structure involves more syntactic processes, it is predicted to be harder to process than (99a).

3.8 Intermediate summary

In this chapter, we have looked at how the empirical facts as described in chapter two can be accounted for in a (minimalist) VO-approach rather than an OV-approach. It was shown that Extraposition, a movement operation that was controversial to start out with, can be disposed with. Furthermore, a distinction was made between Scrambling and Object Shift, thus providing a more fine-grained analysis of arguments in verb clusters. Furthermore, the main verb-auxiliary verb distinction as proposed in chapter two could be maintained, and elaborated on. It was shown that auxiliary verb select deficient vPs and TPs, which explains why their arguments have to raise to positions preceding the matrix predicate, and why there is no independent Tense inside verb clusters. Case assignment processes have been proposed on the basis of an independent operation Agree, in a Probe-Goal framework (Chomsky, 1994; 2001). We have touched upon the order preservation, showing that the base-generated order of the arguments in verb clusters must be maintained, unless strong pragmatic reasons force other derivations. The nominal infinitive hypothesis of German verb clusters was maintained, and accounted for the various word orders encountered. Finally, a VO- approach correctly predicts that German verb clusters are harder to process than Dutch verb clusters, on the basis of their underlying structure, and should therefore be preferred to the traditional OV- analysis, as employed in Bach et al. (1986).

67