DIFERENTES INTERPRETACIONES DEL DINERO ENDÓGENO:

Cinque’s (1999) approach has been to combine semantic and syntactic properties o f adverbs and show how the former can, if accorded syntactic reality, account for apparent idiosyncrasies in the syntactic behaviour of adverbs. By

compositionality, the universal availability of a set of semantic notions is likely to reflect the universal availability of a set of syntactic heads which are associated with those interpretations. The hierarchical ordering of such heads in the syntax should be reflected in word order constraints, and, making use of extensive cross-linguistic data, Cinque shows that such a universal base of functional heads with semantic import does indeed appear to have consequences for the relative ordering of adverbs. One of the consequences of this approach is a proliferation of abstract functional heads, and Cinque argues that the functional architecture associated with clausal structure is much more highly articulated than was previously thought.,

Cinque proposes that adverbs occupy the specifier positions in projections of abstract functional heads, each of which has particular semantic effects (see also Kayne 1994 and Alexiadou 1997 for similar suggestions). Because of the strict hierarchical ordering of these heads, adverbs are also ordered with respect to each other. The ordering is proposed to be universal, with apparent deviations from the hierarchically-imposed order of adverbs being the result of either (a) a limited set of m ovement operations (wh movement of one adverb across another; focusing of an adverb; raising of a lower portion of the clause which contains an adverb); (b) the modification of one adverbial element by another, which would then appear in spec of the modified adverb; or (c) some instances in which the same adverb can be base­ generated in more than one position, which in any case yields different scope and interpretive effects.

To exemplify the kind of argumentation employed to support the existence of this universal ordering, Cinque notes that, in standard Italian, the adverb mica (a negative adverb) must precede già {already)’, in turn, già must precede più {any longer) (example (4) below is based on Cinque’s (l)-(3)):

(4) a. Non hanno mica già / *già mica chiamato, che io sappio. They have not already telephoned, that I know,

b. AlTepoca non possedeva già più / *più già nulla.

At the time (s)he did not possess already any longer anything. = She did not then have any possessions left.

This relative ordering between mica and già, and then between già and più, leads to the prediction that mica must precede piw, this prediction is borne out (Cinque’s (7)):

(5) Non hanno chiamato mica più / mica , da allora. They haven’t telephoned not any longer, since then. = They haven’t telephoned any more since then.

In this way, Cinque proceeds through a great variety of examples from many different languages, involving a wide variety of adverbial elements, and shows that it is possible to derive a surprisingly uniform, crosslinguistic, underlying order of adverbials. Cinque does not view adverbs as functional heads, though he does view them as the heads of their own projections (AdvP) rather than part of, say, the extended projection of V, or as an element which takes some projection of V as its complement. This is because adverbs do not block head movement,' and because (some) adverbs can be preposed in topicalization and focus movement - an operation which is open to XP but not to X^. In other words, Cinque argues for a structure like that in (6) below, where adverbs head their own projections, which occupy spec position in the projection of a functional head in the clausal domain. (Note that (6) is greatly simplified; Cinque argues that the whole hierarchy of functional heads is universally represented, whether or not their specs are occupied in a particular sentential context, whereas I only show the projections of the functional heads for Habitual Aspect and Anterior Tense; the omitted projections between Anterior Tense and the IP are indicated by a dotted line. Also, I have omitted movement o f the subject and auxiliary to higher functional projections, showing them instead in their positions in the IP.)

(6) John has usually already eaten at this time. *John has already usually eaten at this time.

Asp (habitual) P

AdvP Asp (habitual) '

Adv ' Asp (habitual) T (anterior) P Adv usually AdvP T (anterior) ' Adv ' T (anterior) ' ^ Adv already John t (John) V ' V PP

eaten at this time

The abstract functional heads impose strict selectional requirements on their specifiers by means of a feature-checking mechanism; essentially this is a kind of spec, head agreement which has reference to semantic attributes of the adverbial elem ent and the functional head, rather than syntactic attributes. (In a sense this is similar to Alexiadou’s (1997) suggestion, mentioned above, that the -ly morpheme realised on some English adverbs is the result of agreement between the adverb and a functional head; but Alexiadou suggests that the relevant functional head is verbal, rather than clausal.)

The inventory of heads with adverb-occupied specifiers proposed by Cinque is, as he points out (p. 106) rather large; however, he maintains that the presence of a universally realised set of functional projections in the clause is not unlikely. The alternative view, that only those functional heads which receive a morphological

realisation exist in any given language, has undesirable consequences. In such a situation, most adverbs would not be related to a functional head, and then UG would have to provide two hierarchies: one to account for the relative ordering of functional categories, and another to account for the relative ordering of adverbial elements. It is more economical, suggests Cinque, to assume that one UG-imposed hierarchy is responsible for both sets of relative ordering. In addition, he argues, the view o f the functional domain of the clause as being more highly articulated than hitherto suspected has desirable consequences for leamability, inasmuch as a child acquiring a first language will ‘only need to recognise and locate in the appropriate structural places made available by UG the morphological and lexical material provided by his/her language’ (p. 107).

(7) summarises Cinque’s proposed universally available hierarchy of clausal functional projections (his (92), p. 106):

(7) [ frankly Moodspeech act [ fortunately Moodevaiuative [ allegedly Moodevidentiai

[ pro bably M o o d e p iste m ic [ once T ( p a s t ) [ then T ( f u t u r e ) [ perhaps M o o d in e a U s [ necessarily M o d n ecessity [ possibly M od p o ssib iiity [ usually A sphabituai

[ again A sprepetitive(I) [ often Aspfrequentative(I) [ intentionally ^^Odvofitional [ quickly A spceierative(i) [ already T ( A n t e r i o r ) [ no longer Aspterm inative

[ still A spcontinuative [ alwayS A spperfect(?) \_just Aspretrospective \_SOOn A spproxim ative [ briefly A sp Ju rative [ characteristically (?) Aspgenenc/progressive

[ alm ost A spprospective [ Completely AspsgC om pletive(I) [ tUttO AsppiC om pIetive [ w ell V o i c e [ fa s t/e a r l y A spceierative(n) [ again A sprepetitive(ii)

[ often A sp fr e q u e n ta t iv e ( II ) [ Completely A s p s g c o m p le t iv e ( I I )

In the light of the preceding discussion Cinque’s view has a certain appeal. The apparently ambiguous status of adverbs with respect to the lexical / functional dichotomy is readily accounted for. Adverbs per se are lexical - that is, substantive; which is why they have many of the features of lexical items (they can take stress, they are open class, most of them carry conceptual rather than procedural meaning). On Cinque’s view, adverbs per se are not scopal elements, but scope can be taken by the abstract heads whose specifier positions are occupied by adverbs. So adverbs are in a sense the manifestation of a functional head, even though they are not functional heads themselves.